Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEES TUNNEL BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts).

As amended, considered.

Amendments made to the Bill.

Bill to be read the Third time.

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Management (Taylor Committee)

Mr. Brittan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects the Taylor Committee to complete its deliberations.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I hope to receive the Committee's report by next Easter.

Mr. Brittan: Does the Secretary of State agree that when the report is published, if effect is to be given to the Government's new-found enthusiasm for the maintenance of standards in education it will be important to reject any suggestion that the rôle of governors and managers in the supervision of the curriculum should be diminished in any way?

Mrs. Williams: The Government have been concerned about standards throughout their period in office. It would be unwise to anticipate my decision on the Taylor Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State not share the hope that the outcome will be a bigger rôle for parents in school management and government? Could it not result in being something of an answer to the concern expressed by the Prime Minister that if parents were more involved in education there would be more effective pressure for basic standards than can be provided from the centre?

Mrs. Williams: I am anxious to involve parents. That is why the Government have made clear that for the first time parents will be involved in consultations about proposals for the curriculum.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many schools the managers and governors are parents?

Mrs. Williams: That is true, but my hon. Friend will know that there are differences between local authorities. Increased parental participation is something which the Government wish to encourage.

School Curricula

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of the Prime Minister's recent speech on education, she will now answer questions on curricular matters.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I do not have detailed responsibility for curricula in maintained schools; the 1944 Education Act places this on local education authorities and school governors and managers. As I made clear in a speech at Rotherham on 22nd October, however, I have a close concern for the school curriculum in general, and intend to embark upon a series of consultations about this issue.

Mr. Morrison: Is the Secretary of State prepared to introduce a policy of minimum standards of literacy and numeracy to be determined at the ages of 7, 11 and 14?

Mrs. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman had read my speech at Rotherham—I do not blame him if he has not—he will be aware that we propose that there should be consultations in advance of any proposals to be made at the turn of the year. We propose to involve teachers' organisations, local authorities, the two sides of industry and—so far as we can involve them—interested parents. It would be most foolish of me to say now, in advance, what the Government's proposals are, since I intend to consult freely and honestly with those groups and to put forward proposals in the light of discussions.

Mr. Newens: Is it not illogical that hon. Members may ask questions about the training of teachers but not about the shortage of teachers in particular subjects? Is it not high time that some change was made, so that hon. Members can probe the situation in the schools to ensure that criticisms are not made of comprehensive education in principle when the grounds for criticism lie elsewhere?

Mrs. Williams: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend. I intend that Parliament should be included in the discussions.

Mr. St John-Stevas: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box in her important new post and on being the third Minister

appointed to shadow me. I hope that she will have more success and be more moderate than her predecessors.
I appreciate that the right hon. Lady is naturally cautious about committing herself, but does she agree that it would be inappropriate for her Department to behave as though we have a set centrally -controlled curriculum? Does she not think it would be appropriate and desirable for her Department to lay down national standards of attainment?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that shadowing a sun like himself is always very difficult. The sun moves round in 24-hour cycles, and here it has started up again.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed the Government's view that there is no question of State control of the curriculum. That would be a long step backwards. What we intend to do is to seek the achievement of basic school standards of the kind for which many parents have been pressing, but this must not involve any attempt at direct central control of the curriculum—something which none of us would want.

Mr. Roderick: Will my right hon. Friend remind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that there is a world of difference between education and training, and that he should not be lured into confusion by the advice of industrialists, who have tended to take a narrow view of education over the years?

Mrs. Williams: There is much truth in what my hon. Friend says, but I think he would not disagree that over the last two years of schooling there is a need for links between the world of employment and the world of schooling. In my view this must be a two-way and not a one-way traffic.

School Transport

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has received any new evidence or comments on the rules relating to school transport from local education authorities in England since the beginning of the current academic year; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has


completed consultations with local authorities on the subject of school transport.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): Consultations on the proposals outlined in the Department's consultative document are complete and no new evidence or comments have come to hand since the beginning of the current academic year. My right hon. Friend is looking at the question of school transport generally but is not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Madel: Is the hon. Lady aware that parents are becoming very concerned about the three-mile limit, especially where an education authority such as Bedfordshire is going comprehensive and over the academic year the catchment area of schools is changed? Is there not a case for introducing a shorter distance with a flat-rate charge for parents, not least because of the annual changes in the catchment areas affecting so many people in a growing county such as mine?

Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman may not have fully realised that it is within the power of local authorities to make discretionary as well as mandatory payments. If in Bedfordshire the changing situation year by year gives rise to particular difficulty it is open to the hon. Gentleman's local authority to seek to make adjustments on either side.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a county such as mine—Gloucestershire—in the county education office an inordinate amount of time is now spent dealing with problems related to school transport? Is she further aware that there is great concern in my constituency about the withdrawal of concessionary fares? Will she please introduce legislation rapidly to rationalise this chaotic situation?

Miss Jackson: I am only too well aware that the withdrawal of concessionary fares has exacerbated a situation already growing increasingly difficult year by year. The problems created for many parents are very grave. However, the fundamental difficulty that we face is not only that many parents are extremely

disturbed about any proposed change but that local authorities are opposed to a change. We are trying to see a way through this difficult problem.

Mr. Luce: Does the hon. Lady realise that as bus fares increase parents who live just inside the statutory limit feel growing resentment against those who receive all the benefits and live outside the limit? In the light of the current economic situation and in order to be fairer to those people, would it not be more sensible now to introduce a standard fare for all?

Miss Jackson: This was part of the basis of the scheme put forward to local authorities and interested bodies some time ago. Revised versions of the proposals were circulated in an attempt to find something acceptable to all parties. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. We are trying to make progress, but we are not getting much co-operation.

Overseas Students

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate she has made of the probable reduction in numbers of home and overseas postgraduate students in the universities that will result from the increase in fees to £750 per annum.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): In the academic year 1977–78 the reduction in projected numbers might be between 3,000 and 7,000 for home students and between 1,000 and 3,000 for overseas students. However, both the proposals and their statistical consequences are still under review.

Mr. Allaun: Will my hon. Friend and the Government consider overcoming the serious shortage of postgraduate students by allowing unemployed graduates to register for suitable postgraduate courses without loss of their social security benefit and with payment of fees by the State?

Mr. Oakes: That is basically a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Services. Under the present financial constraints I cannot see that it would be possible to put my hon. Friend's plan into operation.

Dr. Hampson: Will the Minister confirm that raising an extra £48 million from fees by 1978–79 will involve a 50 per cent. increase on next year's levels of £650 and £750? Will he therefore explain the need for further restrictions on the flow of overseas students by the cumbersome and costly procedure that he and the Home Office are to announce in a circular?

Mr. Oakes: The proposals and their statistical consequences are still under review. I should like to make it absolutely clear that the Press speculation to which the hon. Gentleman alluded in the last part of his question bears no relation to the level of fee. Consultation documents issued to various bodies are now being presented to the Press as Government policy, whereas no break with the existing policy is suggested in those documents.

Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the payment of fees by about 100 different public bodies to about 100 different academic institutions in respect of 300,000 students is a bureaucratic idiocy, as virtually all the money comes out of public funds anyway? The whole system is nonsensical.

Mr. Oakes: It does not all come out of public funds. A considerable proportion for postgraduate students comes by way of grants from industry or from students who pay for themselves.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Well said.

Mr. Nelson: Is the Minister aware that still up to one-third of the science postgraduates in many universities are foreign students? Does he agree that at a time of economic stringency charity should begin a little nearer home? In order to make up some of the shortfall that the increase in fees may cause in postgraduate numbers in scientific departments of universities, will the hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of differential grants to encourage, in engineering and science, a bigger uptake of domestic places by United Kingdom graduates?

Mr. Oakes: I should welcome a bigger uptake by domestic students. Unfortunately, although the position is now slightly better, we do not have that uptake. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that it is so easy and cut-

and-dried a question. Charity does begin at home by the education that we can give to foreign students. Britain benefits to a considerable extent from the spin-off resulting from their being educated here.

Truancy

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions have taken place with the local education authorities on truancy and related matters since June 1976.

Miss Margaret Jackson: No formal discussions have been held since the meeting in June with representatives of the local authority and teacher associations and other educational bodies concerned. The follow-up action has been planned and will be taken in association with local education authorities.

Mr. McCrindle: As truancy appears to be concentrated in the larger cities and in the age group between 15 and 16, has the hon. Lady any plans to reconsider her policy on the school leaving age? In particular, is she considering returning some discretion to the teacher on the question when a child is allowed to leave during the last year?

Miss Jackson: The school leaving age was raised some time ago, but it is a little soon to decide to make a change. Giving teachers discretion to say when a child should leave would require a change in legislation, and Opposition Members are always complaining about the pressures on our legislative time. In some areas the problem will be accentuated by the leaving age being raised to 16, but essentially it is much more a problem of individual cases, and these can be more easily dealt with by teachers and by individual authorities. There are not many recent figures, but figures from ILEA relating to surveys this year show a small but definite improvement in truancy rates. It is a welcome sign, and one for which we have been looking for a considerable time.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill becomes Members of Parliament to lecture parents and education authorities and others about truancy when hon. Members, day in and day out, play truant from this House? Does she


not also agree that last night's vote was another vindication of this theory?

Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend's observations are interesting, but I do not think that I should comment on them.

Mr. Montgomery: Will the hon. Lady ask her Department to require local authorities to publish truancy figures? Is not there a link between truancy among 15- and 16-year-old children and the enormous increase in juvenile crime?

Miss Jackson: Given that we do not have adequate statistics in regard to absences from school, I believe that it would be dangerous to draw conclusions from statistics that do not exist in great numbers. Local authorities are already free to publish truancy data if they choose to do so. We as a Government have not decided to collect those figures and draw them together, because they are difficult to interpret and are not always collected on the same basis from one local authority to another. It is open to local authorities to publish their own figures, and of course it is equally open to hon. Members to press their local authorities to do so.

Dr. Boyson: We welcome the figures showing an ostensible decline in truancy rates in ILEA, but should we not be sure that the figures on the registers are correct? Was it not the case at one time for inspectors as well as chairmen of governors to check school registers? Now that inspectors are to visit schools in connection with curricula, why cannot they check the registers too—bearing in mind that publications such as Where?, which is by no means a Right-wing publication, have thrown doubt on the validity of many school registers?

Miss Jackson: Although there are problems connected with truancy and ways in which teachers and local authorities can try to bring about a decline in the figures, at present there are many other matters to which our over-worked inspectorate could turn its mind. I am willing to inquire into this matter if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, but he seems to be suggesting that because he does not accept the validity of such statistics, somebody else should produce some other results. A good deal of work would be involved in such an exercise

and, as I have said, such efforts could perhaps be better directed.

Policy Formulation

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied that the process of policy formulation in her Department is sufficiently open to public participation.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In its Tenth Report this Session the Expenditure Committee made some recommendations about public participation in policy making in my Department, to which the Government will respond shortly in their reply to the report. The Prime Minister and I have already proposed a major public debate on the curriculum.

Mr. Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that heartening reply, but will she accept that public debate will scarcely get oil the ground unless great efforts are made to improve public participation in fundamental planning decisions by the Department? Does she accept that it is necessary to define the word "shortly", as used in her reply, in the hope that responses to reports of the Expenditure Committee will be made in a sharper manner than precedents in the last 18 months to two years have illustrated?

Mrs. Williams: In reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I hope to give a reply this month, which will be a period of only three months after the Committee reported.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recall that I have already published not only my answer to the Schools Council's proposals for an examination at 16-plus and for the CEE but also a full appendix and my reasons, and have laid the papers before Parliament. I intend to continue this style of open government. It is much better to do that than to have government by "leak", especially an irresponsible leak, such as that in The Guardian this morning, suggesting that the Government are planning something in terms of a document that Ministers have not yet seen.

Mr. George Gardiner: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that, ideally, consultations should go beyond professional bodies and embrace spokesmen for the


great consuming public? Will she consider the Expenditure Committee's proposal that membership of the Schools Council should be opened up to include many more lay members?

Mrs. Williams: The subject of the Schools Council composition was raised in the Expenditure Committee's Report, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will await my considered reply. It would be unwise to give that reply in bits and pieces.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us regard the consultation procedure in the Department of Education and Science as a little better than some of the procedures adopted in other great Departments of State? Is she further aware that, however much one may deplore the "leak", as she calls it, in The Guardian today, it raises profound issues about the function of our educational institutions? Is she aware that many Labour Members would gravely deplore our educational institutions being brought into a policing role in regard to immigrants?

Mrs. Williams: I share some of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend but, as I have already made clear, Ministers in the Department have not finally approved the document; nor, indeed, have they seen it. Therefore, I believe that the material published in The Guardian this morning is very misleading and could create a great deal of worry and alarm among those concerned. It will not be of assistance to good international relations or to good race relations in this country.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Has the Secretary of State not revealed a grave situation in her Department if documents of this importance can be obtained by the Press before Ministers have even seen them? Will she instigate an inquiry within her Department to see how this situation came about? It is clear that not only the Home Office is concerned; her Department is, too.

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is barking slightly up the wrong tree. The document was first issued for consultation in 1973, and consultations have been taking place since that time. What has now appeared is an updated version

of the 1973 draft circular—which, as I said, was never issued—without any fresh policy decisions contained within it. It will have to come before Ministers—as, indeed do all circulars—before it is finally issued. Before that happens, it is normally the case with updated documents that we engage in a round of consultations with those concerned. I wish to make it clear that the Government have made no decision, though no objective person who read The Guardian report would have come to that conclusion. I think that he or she would have come to the conclusion that a decision had been made by the Government on the circular. That is not so.

School Games Kit

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will alter the regulations to enable local authorities to help in cases of parental financial need for school games kit since evidence suggests truancy to avoid humiliation by children whose circumstances do not enable them to have the proper kit.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Local education authorities already have discretionary powers to help in such cases by providing kit free on loan, and if matters are handled sympathetically these powers are sufficiently wide to avoid this kind of problem.

Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an anomaly in the situation under which local authorities have discretionary powers in regard to school uniforms but appear to have no discretionary powers in regard to other equipment and in certain cases have to use subterfuges? Would it not be better if there were a directive to local authorities giving them a power of discretion?

Miss Jackson: There is a power of discretion, but it is only to provide kit to be given on loan to children. Local authorities do not have discretion to provide kit directly to children that will then become their property. I am afraid that it is not possible to change the situation, even though it is a difficult one, by issuing directives. The matter would involve amending legislation, and could be discussed only in the context of the subject of school uniforms, PE kit, and all


the rest of it. It could not, therefore, be undertaken in a hurry.

Science Research Council

Mr. Macfarlane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has yet had discussions with the Chairman of the Science Research Council.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Yes Sir, on 1st November.

Mr. Macfarlane: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I am grateful that that meeting has taken place? Is she not seriously concerned at the cut-backs forced upon the Science Research Council which may well prevent it from sustaining the necessary standard of education and research in universities? Can she give the House an assurance that after giving science a low priority for two and a half years the Government will provide new initiatives and encouragement?

Mrs. Williams: It is true that the science budget has suffered from a limited reduction in the current year. However, the much more serious factor which has affected the budget has been the effect on international subscriptions of the fall in the value of the pound, since international subscriptions are expressed in currency units and not in national currencies. We are consulting about this matter. As a result of my discussions with the Chairman of the Science Research Council and also with the Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils I have concluded that a good deal of new and important work will, nevertheless, be able to go ahead.

Mr. Nelson: Will the right hon. Lady say whether she has had discussions with the SRC about the progress of the teaching companies experiment which is being carried out in conjunction with the Department of Industry? Does she feel that this experiment is doing anything more than paying lip service to the need for a greater degree of technology transfer and for a better relationship between universities and industry? Will she consider extending the scheme to far more companies than the present limited number, which tend to be in the higher echelon of industrial performance and

are consequently not open to a large number of postgraduate students?

Mrs. Williams: The "teaching company" concept is an interesting one. We have to see how the experiment works out before extending it. It would be disastrous to extend it and then to discover that it was a failure. What we should do is to see whether the experiment works out and whether it can be extended not only to universities but to polytechnics, so that far more students of engineering technologies can gain direct and first-hand experience in industry while studying.

GCE and CSE Examinations

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has now met the Schools Council to discuss its proposal to replace the GCE and the CSE with a single examination.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I met the Chairman of the Schools Council on Monday 25th October, and look forward to further discussions.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that she deserves our congratulations for her answer to Sir Alex Smith and his proposals? Can she ever envisage a common examination standard for all 16- to 19-year-olds which will not tend to impair examination standards and thus harm the employment chances of young people?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may not have understood what was proposed by the Schools Council. It was not a common examination standard or even, for that matter, after the first stages, a common examination. What the Council recommended ultimately was a common examination system. I want to make it clear that, for obvious reasons, with small groupings of a specialised kind, there would be great advantages in a common examination system. I believe that we have first to satisfy ourselves on two points, the first being that a common examination system can be applied across what is now nearly 80 per cent. of the school population taking some formal examination at 16 and, secondly, that the administrative and financial complications, which are quite considerable, can be satisfactorily resolved. If these two


criteria can be met I, for one, would welcome a common system of examination. I remain to be persuaded that they can be met.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even if there were two or three separate examinations at 16-plus, many of the qualities which are required could not be examined? Does she also agree that having a universal system of examination would take some of the responsibility from future employers for making their assessment of these other qualities, which at the moment they are sometimes not anxious to do?

Mrs. Williams: I see my hon. Friend's point. I do not think that examinations should be asked to do what they cannot do. Where we have, as at present, a fair amount of employer and industrial confidence in the CSE and GCE system, it is important to establish that there would be equal confidence in any successor system. I am talking just about examinations.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. Lady agree that if more parents and industrialists were members of the Schools Council, instead of just teachers, these ridiculous proposals of the Council would never have emerged?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed my reply to one of his hon. Friend's earlier questions on the subject of the Select Committee's recommendations. I must ask the House to await my considered reply to its report.

Dr. Boyson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many of us are dubious about a common examination at the age of 16? We are worried that the attempt to have such an examination may throw doubt on the credibility of academic standards in examinations at the very time when education is in turmoil—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say that both sides of the House today are altering Question Time and making speeches? It is not on one side; it is on both sides. It has been happening all afternoon.

Dr. Boyson: The point was made by the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is the Minister aware that 40 per cent. of the least academic children currently take no examination? Would

it not be practical to have a vocational examination for these people, so that they are not put into CSE classes, where most of them fail, to the disadvantage of themselves, the schools, and the country?

Mrs. Williams: I have already said that there are great advantages in a common system of examination, because it would enable considerable teaching economies to be made. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I would point out that whereas only three out of five children in our secondary schools passed some public examination of any kind in 1972, by 1974 the figure had risen to four out of five. Many of the criticisms that educational standards are falling are utterly beside the point.

Universities (Science and Technology Vacancies)

Mr. Hooky: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many places in science and technological subjects, other than medicine or dentistry, but including mathematics, remained unfilled in October 1976 in the universities and polytechnics of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Oakes: In terms of physical capacity in science and technology departments, there are something like 27,000 such places, which would allow for an increase in annual entry of about 9,000 in universities in Great Britain and polytechnics in England and Wales. These figures take no account of the availability of staff, and other resources, which also determine the number of students that may be accepted in particular disciplines.

Mr. Hooky: Does my hon. Friend agree that the critical decision is made by boys and girls about their higher education not at 18 but at 16? Does he further agree that we shall be lumbered with this problem of a shortage of technologists and scientists until we do something about excessive specialisation in the sixth form? Will he address his mind to that?

Mr. Oakes: I do address my mind to that. I disagree with my hon. Friend that a decision is necessarily taken as late as 16. Sometimes decisions to drop mathematics or science are taken at 12 or 13 as the Prime Minister made clear in his speech at Ruskin College.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister of State accept that the shortages of scientists and technologists in industry are a result not only of the education that they receive but of the education received by managers in industry who often do not know how to use people of high qualification, which leads to people being frustrated and deters others from entering upon such a career?

Mr. Oakes: It is true to say that industry needs to improve its image and that that image must conform to reality. It is a two-way process. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has encouraged this national debate on education, so that the two sides can talk to each other.

Comprehensive Education (Reorganisation)

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has yet received proposals from the Kent County Council concerning comprehensive reorganisation throughout that authority's area.

Miss Margaret Jackson: No, Sir.

Mr. Ovenden: Is the Minister aware of the recent decision of the Kent Education Committee to continue a "Tame-side" system throughout parts of the county? Is she further aware that that system merely replaces selection at 11 by selection at 13? Will she make it clear to the Kent County Council that when the Education Bill becomes law it is her intention to make sure that the system I have described is replaced by a fully comprehensive system?

Miss Jackson: When the Education Bill becomes law it is our intention to see a fully comprehensive system of education in Kent, as in every other part of the country.

Mr. Dodsworth: Will the hon. Lady confirm that if she receives any proposals from the Kent County Council she will take into account any discussions that she has had with the Hertfordshire County Council, where over 22 children are not at school, due to the dissatisfaction of the parents with the process of secondary transfer that is taking place in that county council, directly resulting from the reorganisation of education within the county?

Miss Jackson: Every year in every local authority there are always a number of parents who are unhappy with the selection procedures for their children. Within the strict limits that we are allowed we do our best, as do local authorities, to ensure that these problems are solved as amicably as possible in the interests of the children.

Mathematics

Dr. Hampson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will establish an inquiry into all aspects of the teaching of mathematics in schools.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The question of mathematics teaching is bound to arise in the forthcoming consultations about the curriculum and standards. I intend to await the results of that consultation before considering whether an inquiry on these lines would be the best way of proceeding.

Dr. Hampson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that 11 months ago, in a speech at Sheffield, her predecessor called for a strong attack on mathematical illiteracy, and that my right hon. and hon. Friends entirely agreed? Is she aware that it has been our policy to have a Bullock-type inquiry into mathematics in all its aspects? Why has a year been wasted?

Mrs. Williams: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like everything to happen yesterday, but it is not like that in education. In 1977 work is expected to be completed on an assessment of ways of monitoring standards for mathematics. In 1978 there will be a major national sample survey of mathematics. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that to go ahead with ill-thought-out and ill-proven materials would be wholly self-defeating.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many former mathematics teachers like myself would very much welcome an inquiry into the teaching of mathematics? Is she further aware that the so-called modern mathematics, while they may be the right media for producing mathematics graduates, are not necessarily the right type of teaching for the mass of children who leave school at 16? If my right hon. Friend sets up an inquiry


of any kind, will she ensure that there are not too many university people on it, as they are largely responsible for the change that has taken place in the past 10 years?

Mrs. Williams: The problem that arises from an inquiry, as my hon. Friend will know better than most people in the House, is that it usually takes a very long time to report—probably between two years and three years from being established. I do not believe that we have as long as that. Therefore, I am already proposing to take certain actions that are likely to give us a picture of what is happening in mathematics a good deal more quickly than would be the case with an inquiry. As I have already said, I remain agnostic about whether we should have an inquiry. That will have to await a later decision.

Teaching Methods

Mr. MacFarquhar: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now reconsider the decision not to commission an independent full-scale investigation of teaching methods in British schools.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I do not rule this out, but in general I am opposed to inquiries with terms of reference so widely drawn.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the somewhat lofty manner in which my right hon. Friend's Department set aside as partial the evidence of Dr. Neville Bennett about teaching in primary schools, does my right hon. Friend accept that only her Department has the resources to institute a truly wide-ranging investigation into this subject, which worries parents almost as much as questions of curricula?

Mrs. Williams: I must say straight away that it was Dr. Bennett who congratulated my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State upon the way in which she interpreted his evidence to the House and deplored the way in which certain other hon. Members interpreted his findings. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I refer him to the answer that I have just given. There is always endless pressure for further inquiries in the education world.

Sometimes it seems that we should take a little action.

Sir John Hall: Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is a considerable amount of disquiet about teaching in primary schools, especially when this so often leads to the necessity for secondary schools to establish remedial classes to deal with children who cannot write or read properly? Will she reconsider her decision not to carry out an investigation into teaching methods, particularly in primary schools?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been an inquiry into precisely this matter—namely, the Bullock inquiry, which continued for nearly three years. It concerned itself precisely with reading standards in primary schools. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman's point makes my point for me.

Handicraft Courses

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is concerned that poorer children are being deterred from undertaking handicraft courses because of the substantial increase in the cost of materials, including wood and metal, which some secondary schools cannot afford to purchase in sufficient quantity for their pupils and which pupils often cannot afford to purchase.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Although the provision of materials for courses in maintained schools is primarily a matter for local authorities and the schools themselves, I should certainly be concerned if I received evidence of arrangements which deterred poorer children in this way.

Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a situation in which schools seem unable to provide all the materials that are required, and in which a number of children are penalised because they cannot afford to purchase the required materials, and although they would like to enter such courses they cannot? Does she agree that in borderline cases the quality of materials used can determine whether an entrant passes or fails a handicraft examination?

Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend could well write to me about this matter. We have no knowledge of areas where this is a particularly significant problem. It may be that my hon. Friend is not making a distinction between the arrangements where materials are supplied free of charge and where there is a charge if the pupil wishes to keep the finished article. However, if he is talking—as he appears to be—about the supplying of materials, I should like to hear from him about the matter.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Gow: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 2nd November.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, this evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Gow: Will the Prime Minister make time today to reread the broadcast that he made to the nation on 5th April, when he said that there could be no lasting improvement in our living standards unless we stopped going deeper and deeper into debt? How does he reconcile that statement with the reality that during the past seven months the Chancellor of the Exchequer has added to the national debt by more than £6,000 million?

The Prime Minister: It shows that the recovery of a country that has declined over the past 20 years takes longer than six months, and that industrial regeneration, upon which the fortunes of this country are based and which has received the approval of the CBI, the TUC and the Government, is the best way in which we can make Britain fully competitive again. Until that time we shall have to continue slowly in the right direction.

Mr. David Steel: Were any of the ministerial meetings to which the right hon. Gentleman referred related to the progress of the talks at Geneva on the Rhodesian settlement? Will he give the House an assurance that although Mr. Ivor Richard is clearly doing a splendid job as chairman, the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to send the Foreign Secretary

if that should prove necessary to maintain the momentum of British initiative towards a settlement?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about Mr. Ivor Richard, whose experience is well known and who is proving, as I think he has done at the United Nations, to be an excellent chairman in gaining the confidence of everyone at the talks. As for the attendance of my right hon. Friend, who is now on a visit to Yugoslavia, he has indicated that if necessary he would go to Geneva. However, it seems to us at present that in this period of delicate negotiations Mr. Richard is well able to conduct the talks. I hope that there will be some progress.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very sorry that his programme for today will not allow him to make a visit to my constituency, especially to Skelmersdale? Is he aware of the black despair that has settled over the town following the announcement by Courtaulds that it is shortly to close? If we say in the Labour Party that Socialism is the language of priorities, when my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am making a most serious point. If we say that Socialism is the language of priorities, will my right hon. Friend assure my people in Skelmersdale that they will be given the highest priority by the Labour Government, even if that means rescheduling some of the Government Departments that are to be transferred to places that are not in half as much need as is Skelmersdale?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend and I visited Skelmersdale together only two months ago. I am bound to say that I formed a much better impression both of the attributes of the town and of the labour force than I gained from the Press and by reading. I was under the strong impression then that Courtaulds intended to continue with the factory. I understand that today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has been meeting Sir Arthur Knight, the Chairman of Courtaulds, and I think that a statement is expected shortly. Certainly it is important that every step should be taken to restore employment in Skelmersdale—a town that has a considerable future if those who are there can bring themselves,


as I am sure they can, to work productively and competitively.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I refer back to the Prime Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)? As the right hon. Gentleman said in that original broadcast that we cannot go on borrowing indefinitely, and as he will not reduce Government expenditure, is he expecting to increase taxation in order to get the IMF loan?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady really must wait upon the discussions that are taking place at this moment—[Interruption.]—but I can assure her that if there are any announcements to be made they will be made in this House in due course, and at the time that the Government choose and not as a result of shouting from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister recollect that in his broadcast on "Panorama" he gave two broad hints which he refused to give the House? He said that there was scope for increased taxation and that there was a margin for increased taxation. Do I understand that he has now ruled out increased taxation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady can draw any deduction she likes. In that broadcast on "Panorama" I was giving to a semi-philosophical question a wholly philosophical reply—that is to say, I was comparing the general levels of taxation in response to the question that had been asked. The right hon. Lady should not draw any more deductions from it than the weight of the answer will bear.

Mr. Crawford: Will the Prime Minister take time off his official engagements today and reflect on the very serious unemployment and investment situation in Scotland? Does he agree that the only way in which unemployment and inflation can be brought down and investment increased in Scotland is by the establishment of a strong Scots pound and the lower rates of interest that will follow from the marriage between self-government and Scotland's inherently stable balance of payments situation?

The Prime Minister: I have read the concoction that is apparently intended to prescribe financial and economic policy

for Scotland. If I were an elector there, I would not be very attracted by it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on education, delivered at Ruskin College. Oxford, on Monday 18th October.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on education in Oxford on 18th October.

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on education on 18th October at Oxford.

The Prime Minister: I did so the same day.

Mr. Roberts: Has the Prime Minister considered that the general reluctance of young people to enter industry as opposed to the public service may be due to the comparative uncertainty of employment in industry and of the comparatively poor rewards that there appear to be for middle management?

The Prime Minister: I think that there is something in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. When there are high levels of unemployment, certainty and security in employment are a very great attraction, and that must have an impact. But I think that it goes deeper than that. I doubt whether most of the 550,000 youngsters who left school in June and July—all of whom, I am glad to say, are now off the register, except for 78,000—were really concerned at that stage about rewards to middle management. What we need is a closer relationship between schools and industry at all levels, and I hope that that will be encouraged.

Mr. Corbett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech on education. Has he considered the possibility of an inquiry into the supply, training, and qualifications of people in the professional engineering occupations, so that, in order to achieve the reinvigoration of British industry, we have this professional interest?

The Prime Minister: All these matters must come under review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has indicated that we are going to focus attention on this whole range of issues, and I hope that she will be able to produce either a Green Paper or something in another form which will enable us to bring these matters into full discussion so that conclusions can be reached on them. I am in no doubt, as a result of the correspondence that has reached me since I directed attention to this matter—although I know that others have been doing it for some time—that there is genuine concern in industry and a strong desire on the part of the schools to try to meet the need. We must bring them both together.

Mr. Morrison: In the Prime Minister's welcome but belated concern about standards in education, will he now take the obvious step of dropping the Education Bill at once?

The Prime Minister: It is that approach to education which distinguishes the two sides, and shows that the hon. Gentleman is concerned only with making party points and with trying to attack a particular system of education. What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are concerned about is the quality of the education in the schools today.

Mr. William Hamilton: Since my right hon. Friend wants a full public debate on education, will he take it upon himself to instruct the Department of Education and Science that when a Select Committee of this House seeks access to documents pertaining to the deciding of priorities within the Department those documents must be made available to the Committee, and not refused?

The Prime Minister: I will inquire into that. I am not aware of the circumstance to which my hon. Friend is drawing my attention. I am quite certain that what has been said and the attention which has been focused on this matter represent the views of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of parents, and that it is something to which the whole House must turn its attention.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Prime Minister accept our congratulations on the fact that he is at last beginning to understand the concern that has been expressed from the Opposition side of the House about these matters for so long? Will he, as Prime Minister, consider intervening in what would appear to be an interdepartmental wrangle and taking away from the Department of Education and Science the responsibility for the Careers Advisory Service? Will he put it into the hands of people who have had genuine contact with industry, instead of leaving it in the hands of the somewhat remote people who run it at present?

The Prime Minister: I have been impressed by the fact that the quality of the careers officers in a number of schools does vary. In some schools it is much better than in others. Whether a change in structure would effect an improvement, however, I am not sure, but I shall be happy to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the economic difficulties afflicting most of Western society, his speech on education was warmly welcomed by ordinary people? Will he make another speech and make it clear that he will in no wav undertake to submit to the clamour of the Conservative Party to inflict savage cuts on education, which would be the equivalent of eating the seed corn?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that I have now been invited to make a speech at Woodberry Down School on 9th November, where I have no doubt that I shall have something further to say about this matter. This is an area in which I naturally want to see the high level of public expenditure that is devoted to education—about £6 billion a year—used in proper priority, if necessary reordering the existing priorities, so that we can get real value for money.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whilst welcoming the Prime Minister's support of our ideas on standards in education, and understanding the difficulties that there may be in dropping the Education Bill, may I ask whether, as an earnest of his sincerity, he can now give an undertaking


that no local education authority will be forced into going comprehensive without being given adequate financial resources to make a good job of it and avoid botched-up schemes?

The Prime Minister: The Opposition's pathological dislike of comprehensive schools is exceeded only by the reaction of Pavlov's dogs when the bell rings. If the hon. Gentleman would concern himself more with the content and less with the structure of education, we might do very much better.

GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD. (DISPUTE)

Mr. Gorst: Mr. Gorst (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the industrial dispute affecting Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd., which could be forced into liquidation by the end of this week with the loss of 300 jobs if the illegal withholding of mail by the Union of Post Office Workers continues.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that some 140 employees of this company have been on strike since 23rd August, initially in support of 10 other employees who, it is claimed, were dismissed unfairly. The strikers themselves were subsequently dismissed by the company.
The strike has been made official by the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff, which is claiming recognition. At the request of the Association, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has several times sought to persuade the company to accept its assistance in seeking an end to the dispute but the company has so far refused to meet the union.
On 15th October the union referred the recognition issue to ACAS under the statutory procedure provided in the Employment Protection Act. An inquiry by ACAS is, I understand, proceeding.
Members of other unions are taking sympathetic industrial action, including action by members of the Union of Post Office Workers which is affecting postal services to the company.
Given the history and circumstances of this dispute, I would hope that the company will even now agree to participate in meetings with the union under the auspices of ACAS in a search for the earliest possible settlement of the issues in dispute.

Mr. Gorst: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is possible that there may well be a dispute about some of the facts, as seen by the management. The managing director is a constituent of mine. I put to the Minister that the action by the Union of Post Office Workers is in direct contradiction to the provisions of Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953, which states that any officer of the Post Office who wilfully fails to handle mail is guilty of a misdemeanour.
Will the Minister say whether this provision has been brought to the attention of the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers? If so, will he, in the light of that, be withdrawing this industrial action? If industrial action is not withdrawn, will proceedings under the Act be taken against those who are involved?

Mr. Walker: I think that what is beyond dispute is that there is interference with the mail—although this started only yesterday, I understand. I am sure that the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers is quite familiar with the law in this respect. It is not for me to judge the legality or illegality of such action. I understand, however, that if the company would respond to the proposals of ACAS for conciliation and the use of the Section 11 procedure under the Employment Protection Act, the union would immediately call off its action.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that this firm employs Asians who work in disgraceful conditions and that immediately they join APEX they are sacked? Will the Minister, therefore, explain to the firm that the first step in avoiding liquidation is to negotiate with APEX in order to get a settlement?

Mr. Walker: I have heard some very disturbing stories about the behaviour of the company, but we all recognise that what is necessary now is that steps should be taken to bring the dispute to a speedy end. I hope that the company will take


advantage of the willingness of ACAS to conciliate and to use the Section 11 procedure to which I have referred.

Mr. Tebbit: Without entering into the merits of the dispute one way or the other, may I ask the Minister whether he will now advise Post Office workers that it is no part of their job to discriminate in the delivery of mail in response to industrial disputes, political likes and dislikes, or any other factor whatsoever? The Minister should make the position clear now. Is he aware that, if he does not do so, it will be assumed that he is at least conniving in—if not giving complete approval to—the use of the mails as a weapon of industrial warfare?

Mr. Walker: No, I think it is perhaps a symptom of the character of this dispute that reasonable and moderate men feel sufficiently outraged to take the action they have taken. I have no doubt that the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers—the action taken has now been made official—is fully aware of the law. The whole House will recognise him as a reasonable and moderate man who would not take such action unless provoked into it.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that most of the workers in this factory are in my constituency, and that the factory itself is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson)? We have had no notification from the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) in the usual courteous manner.
Is the Minister also aware that the history of this dispute goes back over many years, and that the company is intransigent and sends rude letters to me and to my right hon. Friend? We get no proper response to our letters. It is the only firm in the whole of my constituency which treats its workers in this deplorable fashion. [Interruption.]

Mr. Walker: I am bound to say that I am surprised at the reaction of Conservative Members to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has just said. He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) have played a thoroughly useful and constructive role throughout this long dispute, urging the company to take advantage of the conciliation machinery

provided by the Government—machinery which has secured the approval and support of all parties in this House.

Mr. Prior: Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has said about the attitude of the Post Office workers, will the Minister join me in hoping that reasonable and moderate men in the Union of Post Office Workers will be very careful not to break the law in this case, although they may feel aggrieved at the treatment being meted out to other workers?
In view of the fact that an inquiry is proceeding into a recognition dispute under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act, and that ACAS has the necessary power now to decide on a recognition issue, would it not be better in those circumstances if advice were given to the people concerned to return to work pending the ACAS report? We may otherwise have an increase in the number of unemployed people, and I am sure that we wish to avoid that.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that we all want people in disputes anywhere to observe the law. We are all as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman that any possible loss of jobs arising from this sorry dispute should be avoided. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to encourage the company to use the conciliation machinery which has his blessing. The right way in which to bring a speedy end to the dispute is to get the parties to sit down together—as they will have to do eventually—under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that this firm has been exploiting coloured immigrants by paying them as little as £23 a week? As the firm's business is conducted mainly by mail order, is it not obvious that a sympathetic union such as the Union of Post Office Workers will take action to prevent this sort of exploitation, and that if the firm refuses to negotiate with ACAS the best thing it can do is to go into liquidation?

Mr. Walker: I said earlier that I had heard disturbing reports about the company's conduct. What we all want now is to seek to bring the dispute to a speedy end and to avoid at this stage the use of any words which might impede that


process. However, there may well be some wider issues deserving of more careful consideration once the dispute has been resolved.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate it now.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all appreciate that when applications are made for Private Notice Questions affecting matters of national importance, there is some sort of general convention that they are raised by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, other applications are made which involve direct constituency interests, and on some of those occasions, although not all, a Private Notice Question will be accepted in the first place by you and then answered.
Having listened to these proceedings for the last 10 minutes, I feel bound to wonder—as, indeed, do some of my hon. Friends—how the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who was responsible for putting down the Private Notice Question, managed somehow or other, in very unusual circumstances, to get it through the tight control exercised by you before allowing a Private Notice Question.

Mr. Pavitt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not question your ruling. I know the procedure very well. But will you also bear in mind that it is not the practice of Mr. Speaker's Department to inform hon. Members if their constituencies are affected by a Private Notice Question? For future reference, would you look into whether that decision should be altered?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite impossible for me—as I must take responsibility—to have a map in order to see where particular factories are and in whose constituency they are. I deal with the issue. The House has vested me with this discretion, which I exercise very carefully, as the House has discovered. I realise that I am very cautious in my attitude. If I think that a Question should go to the Order Paper and not jump the queue, I am not slow in indicating so.
I can only say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I went into this matter with great care before the Question was allowed. I felt that there was some urgency and that a statement was required. That was my judgment.

Mr. Spriggs: Mr. Spriggs rose— —

Mr. Buchan: Mr. Buchan rose— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not allow a debate on what I have said.

Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to be helpful in my point of order. May I put it to you that an hon. Member applying for a PNQ should state definitely whether it is a constituency matter?

Mr. Gorst: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I might make three points on this. First, the matter was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine who is the managing director of the firm concerned. Secondly, the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which this dispute has arisen is in fact a Minister and, therefore, would be unable to raise the matter on the Floor of the House in the way that I could. Thirdly, the issue is much more important than the jobs of 300 people, important as they may be. It has national connotations in that the action of the Post Office workers is a threat to the nation as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: I find it a very difficult task to deal with Private Notice Questions because I have to have the interests of the House as a whole at heart as well as those of the hon. Member who asks the Question.
With regard to the helpful point of order raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), I am afraid that I cannot decide Private Notice Questions on the basis that a Private Notice Question is only a constituency matter. It may well be a matter of national concern. But I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Buchan: I have followed your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in the course of which I think you have answered the point that I wished to make, that in the future, it would be seen as a convention of the House that, where it is a constituency matter, that should be said, and,


where it is not, that also should be said in the application.

Mr. Ridley: Many hon. Members, myself included, feel that it is quite intolerable for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to have questioned your decision, Mr. Speaker, to call this Private Notice Question. Your job would become quite intolerable if you had to answer and defend every decision to call or not to call a Private Notice Question. May we, therefore, assure you that from the Opposition Benches there will be no support for the bullying line of questioning on bogus points of order adopted by Government supporters?

Mr. Speaker: I try to deal courteously with everyone in the House who raises any question, and I assume that an hon. Member who does intends to be courteous.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that we can all agree that it would be most unfortunate if, every time a Private Notice Question were allowed, there were to be an inquest into the way in which you had exercised your discretion or an attempt to rewrite Standing Orders. There are other ways of doing that. I hope very much that, simply because of the rather spiteful disappointment of one hon. Member that something with which he does not happen to agree has been allowed, there will be no suggestion that applications for Private Notice Questions should be in any way limited to constituency interests.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I made that clear earlier. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for what he said in his opening remarks. I think that the House must accept the ruling of its Speaker on these matters.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order— —

Mr. Speaker: This must be the last point of order that I shall take on this matter.

Mr. Faulds: I trust that it will be. In view of the conduct of the disgraceful Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) in not informing the Members more immediately concerned, would it not be

advisable that you Mr. Speaker, or his own conscience, should prick him to apologise to the Members more immediately concerned?

Mr. Speaker: Relationships between hon. Members are not my concern. But I hope that they are always of top quality.

SELECTION OF AMENDMENTS (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) asked me whether I would he willing to have lists of my provisional selection of amendments placed in the "No" Lobby, as is done in the case of the selection of amendments to Bills. I shall be very glad to do this if we have a similar occasion to yesterday's debate when there were a number of amendments to different lines of the motion. I doubt, however, whether it would serve any useful purpose if, for example, selection lists were placed in the Lobby announcing that I proposed to select a Government amendment to an Opposition motion in Supply. If the House is willing to leave these matters to my discretion, I will do my best to see that lion. Members are informed in advance by selection lists whenever this seems to be indicated.

FISHERIES POLICY

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I will, with permission, make a statement about the outcome of a discussion of fisheries questions at a meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers in the Hague on 30th October.
I am glad to report that Foreign Ministers reached agreement on the matters which they had been unable to resolve in the Council on 18th and 19th October. It was agreed that member States of the Community should extend their fishing limits to 200 miles as from 1st January. Agreement was also reached on the outline mandates which will enable the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on framework agreements which will govern future Community fishing in the waters of those


countries, and third country fishing in the waters of member States.
The House is aware of the particular urgency in the negotiations with Iceland, and I am glad to say that the Commission will start negotiations with the Icelandic Government very shortly. On the internal aspects of the Community's fishery policy, the details will have to be dealt with at a later stage. The Council did, however, agree that, in applying the common fisheries policy, account should be taken of the vital needs of the fishing communities in regions particularly dependent on fishing including inter alia the northern parts of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary again made clear that the Government had in no way modified their view on the width and scope of the coastal arrangements which we are seeking.

Mr. Pym: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the agreement to move the limits and are pleased that that has been achieved? Does he accept that more than a framework agreement with Iceland will be required to deal with the situation which arises in the United Kingdom only on 1st December? On the crucial importance of the internal arrangements, I think that the House is agreed about objectives. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Foreign Secretary will be accompanied in his negotiations by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture? Can he confirm that fisheries will be on the agenda and discussed at the Heads of Government meeting at the end of the month?
How is the 200-mile limit to be policed and enforced? Where are the vessels to undertake the task and how is it to be organised? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the details needing to be dealt with later. Is he aware of the urgency and the need to reach agreement by 1st January 1977 so that the partners in the Community will know where they are? Why does the Minister single out the northern parts of the United Kingdom apparently as being particularly dependent upon fishing whereas in reality other parts of the United Kingdom are affected as well?

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I readily confirm that there is considerable urgency in relation to Iceland and a need to make an arrangement there by 1st December. That, of course, has considerable impact on the deep-sea fishing. The Commission is well aware of that, particularly the Commissioner who is dealing with this matter at present.
As for the internal arrangements, it would be of advantage if all these matters could be agreed by 1st January. It would undoubtedly be better, but we must take a realistic view of the negotiations. There is still a formidable gap between the countries of the Nine about the internal régime and it would be optimistic to believe that we would get total agreement by 1st January—although I should be happy to see it.
As for the Heads of Government meeting, of course any Head of Government can put an item on the agenda for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether this matter would be discussed at the end of the month. I have no doubt that if we reached a situation in which there was no possibility of agreement with Iceland, the Prime Minister would wish to discuss the matter with his fellow Heads of Government, but if we can reach some agreement—negotiations are proceeding smoothly—it may be better for that to be discussed later.
Enforcement and policing are crucial parts of any internal regime. It is well known that the Commission has put forward proposals dealing with quotas. There is great scepticism about quotas, largely because of the enforcement procedures. This is therefore a central issue to be discussed as part of the internal regime, and it will be discussed.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister aware of the dismay felt in all parts of the House following the massive compromise made by the members of our delegation in the European Parliament on this matter and the fact that we were unfortunately scuppered by the Irish delegation? I hope that he will convey to the Foreign Secretary, who is also a Humberside Member, the strong feeling that we have now achieved a massive breakthrough and can now attempt negotiations with the Icelanders, the Norwegians and others, such as the


Canadians. We wish him and his team success in this difficult matter of achieving a system of banded zones of 12, 35 or 50 miles within the 50-mile exclusive economic zone which all parties in the House desire.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words about the Foreign Secretary. My right hon. Friend has throughout upheld both the interests of the deep-water fishermen, of whom he has considerable knowledge because of his constituency, and the need for an arrangement on the internal regime to protect the coastal fishermen. A substantial change has been made. The fact that we have been able to get the Council to endorse what the Commission said in its document about the northern region—the first time that that has been stipulated—means that it is now a Council agreement. That is a substantial advance and the wording makes it clear that there are other regions, notably the southwest, all around the coast of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland which we also wish to protect.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope to call every hon. Member with a direct constituency interest in this matter, but I can do so only if hon. Members will make their questions as succinct as possible.

Mr. Powell: As the extension to 200 miles is a decision jointly taken and as, under the Treaty of Accession, the waters between 12 and 200 miles are now in effect Community waters, is there any mutual acceptance of responsibility for the policing of those waters?

Dr. Owen: This is still to be discussed. There are two different views on the question. Some fishermen in the United Kingdom would wish enforcement to be still a United Kingdom responsibility and are sceptical about the advantages of the Community. There are other smaller Community countries without the resources to do an effective policing job over a large area of sea. That was the matter raised by the Irish.

Mr. Beith: In drawing particular attention to the northern parts of the United Kingdom, are the Government making clear their recognition of the needs of the fishing communities in Northumberland,

something which their predecessors did not do?

Dr. Owen: I do not wish to be involved in drawing a map at this stage, but I am well aware of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers. That is why the wording is cast in a fairly broad sense and talks about northern regions of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Hughes: May I add my congratulations to the team who have begun on what may still be a very long haul before we get satisfaction? Can the Minister confirm that the Scottish Office will be represented when it comes to discussing the internal arrangements for the fishing régime?

Dr. Owen: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland took part actively in the discussions on 18th and 19th October and has been closely associated with this matter. I discussed this issue with him on Saturday over the telephone.

Mr. Watt: May I congratulate the Government on their decision to extend the limits to 200 miles? Does the Minister recognise that urgency still exists until we get a 50-mile exclusive zone for Scottish fishermen? So long as our partners in the EEC—namely, the Danes and the Belgians—are allowed to rape our waters by industrial fishing, our entire fishing stocks will be in extreme danger?

Dr. Owen: Her Majesty's Government will look after the interests of British fishermen from wherever in the United Kingdom they come.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that Irish Ministers achieved a better deal for Irish fishermen than British Ministers did for British fishermen? Is he aware that there are many people in Scotland who will seriously question the benefits of British representation at the EEC? Is he aware of the seriousness of this matter and the grave responsibility which rests with him for the unity of the United Kingdom? If he fails to satisfy the legitimate needs of Scottish fishermen, he will fan the flames of separatism much more fiercely than all the nationalists and other extremists put together.

Dr. Owen: I am only too well aware of that. If we had been prepared to acquiesce in an arrangement which did


not recognise the special problems of the United Kingdom, we should have had agreement much earlier. It was because my right hon. Friend fought for a recognition of the special interests of the United Kingdom that the negotiations took such a long time.

Mr. Prescott: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about the extension to 200 miles. However, would he fasten his attention on the real problem? That is the internal fishing policy and the fact that we may be playing off one area against another when what we should do is to consider an alternative policy of coastal control for conservation and quotas agreed with the Community, which would be an alternative to the exclusive zone argument.

Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, that what we are discussing is fish. That is the central issue on which the livelihood of fishermen depends. Therefore, it is right to look seriously at conservation, enforcement and the viability of any system of quotas. However, at the moment the British view remains that we do not believe that we can sufficiently safeguard the interests of the British fishermen without some form of coastal zones.

Mr. John Davies: Would the Minister confirm, so that there can be no vestige of doubt, that his right hon. Friend has agreed in the Council of Ministers with the other Foreign Ministers on a 200-mile fisheries zone and not an exclusive economic zone, which has overtones going well beyond the cause of fisheries?

Dr. Owen: I can confirm that interpretation, which is an important one.

Mr. Jay: Are we then moving to a situation in which Iceland, Norway and other countries obtain a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone while we have to share most of ours with eight other countries?

Dr. Owen: We are moving towards a readjustment of the common fisheries policy, which it was accepted at the time of our accession had many unsatisfactory features. It is difficult to renegotiate that, but we are taking the opportunity of the extension to 200 miles to try to arrange a common fisheries policy which

takes into account the interests of British fishermen rather more than hitherto.

Mr. Wall: Will the Minister explain why all the reports indicate that Ireland received better assurances for a 50-mile limit than were given to Britain? Is he aware that the real battle will be over the 50-mile limit? Is he aware of the explosive anger that will be demonstrated by the whole fishing industry if we fail to obtain a 50-mile exclusive limit?

Dr. Owen: That is a little rich coming from the hon. Gentleman who supported a system which gave no safeguards for fishermen. I do not wish to turn this into a political issue between the two sides of the House, but it does not lie in the mouths of the Conservatives to criticise us in our difficult task of recovering lost ground. We shall do so as far as is humanly possible.

Mr. Bowden: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the inshore fishermen on the South Coast are facing a particularly difficult problem? Will he ensure that when the final area is agreed for exclusive use that will also mean the cancellation of all historic rights?

Dr. Owen: That is an issue that may need to be discussed. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Commission's proposals for keeping to the 12-mile limit and allowing historic rights. Once one embarks on the subject of historic rights and seeks to revert to that situation, one is asking for substantial changes not envisaged at the time of the common fisheries policy.
All hon. Members will have to recognise that we are trying to regain a situation that was given away. It will not be easy to do that, and it would be most unwise for anyone to adopt an attitude which did not reflect that the issue has to be negotiated with nine other countries. These nine countries have shown a degree of understanding of the peculiar and special interests of the United Kingdom and Ireland. However, there is much further to go. I do not disagree with my hon. Friends who have said that we are only just starting the negotiations. I advise the House to look at the position realistically and to make a realistic assessment of the British position.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Is the Minister aware that I believe that what he says is entirely reasonable? We cannot expect to get a 50-mile limit or any other limit by 1st January because of all the complications involved. Will he nevertheless confirm that as from 1st January the fishing fleets of non-Community countries, notably of Japan, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, will be unable to fish within the 200-mile area without some agreement with Community members?

Dr. Owen: That is the essence of the negotiations that are before the Community now. There are problems attached to it. However, we take the view that there should be a reduction of fishing catches from 1st January mutually agreed between third parties and the Community.

Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we agree with the decision about the 200-mile limit, and that I endorse his rejection of the hypocrisy of the Conservatives? May we, however, deal with the question of historic rights? Is it not the case that the vast amount of water that we are dealing with within the 200-mile limit is basically British water? In that context, is he aware that in considering belts and broad bands all rights up to 50 miles—and I would prefer the 50-mile limit—must also be thrown into the melting-pot and discussed before we reach a final decision on the bands up to and including 50 miles?

Dr. Owen: Yes, I totally agree. I think that the whole Common Market fishing policy, which takes in the common fisheries policy, will have to be discussed, and that should embrace the question of historic rights.

Mr. Luce: Is the Minister aware that one reason we must insist on a 50-mile exclusive zone in the internal regime is that we have seen the French and the Belgians over-fish their waters in recent years? If they proceed to do precisely the same in our waters off the Sussex coast and elsewhere, we shall have nothing left to fish.

Dr. Owen: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but there is an acceptable contrary view which believes that fish can be conserved by proper surveillance and protection and a system of quotas. We have to look into

this matter. It is one of the points which will have to be discussed, but we believe that it is easier to do that if there are exclusive rights or a coastal zone.

Mr. Clegg: In Fleetwood we welcome the resumption of negotiations with Iceland. Will British advisers and representatives of the British Government be present when the Commissioner holds the talks?

Dr. Owen: No, these will be negotiations for the Commission to undertake. The Commission has been given a mandate by the Community, and it will negotiate for the Nine as a whole.

Mr. Nott: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)? Were any specific undertakings given to Ireland as a result of the last meeting which were not given to the British? Why was the northern region specifically mentioned and the other regions of the United Kingdom merely mentioned inter alia? Is there some special feature of the northern region which was thought to deserve particular recognition?

Dr. Owen: The main reason was that this was an area which had already been picked up by the Commission. The Commission mentioned three areas—the northern region of the United Kingdom, Greenland and some regions off Southern Ireland. That was felt to be the most that could be achieved if we could secure the Council's endorsement of the Commission's proposals.
The inter alia reference was inserted when other countries recognised that there were other regions similarly affected—we mentioned the south-west and other parts and there was mention of regions off Germany. We argued the case for the southwest. Irish interests are for the Irish Government to take up.
The Irish made a great deal of play of the fact that they have a small fishing industry, as they have in relation to the rest of the Nine, and that they have a development programme in operation. To that extent they had an unusual reference, but their industry is not comparable with the industries of the other member States. I do not claim that they secured any special treatment. I think that the special treatment involved the


three specific areas, leaving open the opportunity of arguing for all the other areas.

Mr. Michael Shaw: I welcome the statement and I acknowledge the words which point to the special needs of the northern parts of the United Kingdom. However, is the Minister aware that my constituents were very disturbed to see in the Press that those words were interpreted as meaning Scotland? Does he accept and confirm that they include the North-East Coast?

Dr. Owen: They mean what they say, and they do not mean just Scotland.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I indicated earlier that I would call those hon. Members with a direct constituency interest, but I meant those I had seen standing. However, I call Mr. Albert Costain.

Mr. Costain: I stood up the moment the statement finished, Mr. Speaker, and I have a direct constituency interest.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement today gave the impression that he had not realised the special problems which exist for the South-East Coast and the narrow waters of the Channel? Is he aware that the fishermen in my constituency—we have three fishing fleets—are extremely worried about conservation? Will he make certain that the talks cover such matters as the types of nets to be used, and that the importance of conserving the fish supply will be stressed? My constituents are apprehensive about what has already happened off the French, Belgian and Dutch coasts.

Dr. Owen: I am aware of the problems of the South-East Coast. I have some personal knowledge of it. These negotiations, however, were held in the Council of Foreign Ministers primarily to deal with external arrangements. The detail of the internal arrangements has yet to be negotiated. Those talks will be difficult, and it will take some time before we reach agreement in view of the difference of views which exists at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) to be under a misapprehension. I was not referring to him when I made my observation. The hon. Gentleman about whom I was speaking knows to whom I was referring.

Mr. Ridsdale: I have a constituency interest which is closer to the Danes and the Belgians than most. Therefore, may I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the negotiations? There is no doubt that on the East Coast there is considerable fear of over-fishing by the Belgians and the Danes.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Conservation is central to the whole negotiations.

Mr. Pym: On enforcement the Minister commended on the admitted complications that will arise with any new internal arrangement. But what will happen about enforcement in the rest of the waters in the 200 miles? Will that be organised from 1st January?
May I take up the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)? In 1971 and 1972 there was no thought of a 200-mile limit, but in 1975 it was being discussed all round the world. Was that not an item that the Government should have put on the list of matters to be renegotiated?

Dr. Owen: I shall try not to make this a partisan issue. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I did not start it, and if he looks in Hansard tomorrow he will see that I did not.
Internal and external regimes and enforcement to some extent run together and it is difficult to separate them. I agree that the 200-mile limit poses a much wider area of sea, and therefore there are greater problems of enforcement. A lot depends on the system operating in the internal regime and the ease with which any form of enforcement can be reached. Negotiations will have to take place in the Community about the resources for policing which the nine member nations can produce. But no final decision has been reached and this is a matter for discussion.

MAIL SERVICES

Mr. Tebbit: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific, urgent and important matter which should have precedence over other business; namely
the interference with the delivery of Her Majesty's mails".
I apologise for not giving you notice earlier in the day, Mr. Speaker, but I could not do so because the matter was not public knowledge until the Private Notice Question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst).
I submit that this is a very specific matter because it refers to the circumstances surrounding the holding up of mail in pursuit of an industrial dispute. That is how my hon. Friend described the circumstances, and this was confirmed as accurate by the Minister of State for Employment.
It is an important matter because the carriage of mail is a State monopoly, and it is a service which is vital to the continuance of the social, industrial, and commercial life of this country.
It is urgent because this is a great abuse and the longer it is allowed to continue without the House debating it and reaching a conclusion about what should be done, the more difficult it will be to uproot and destroy such abuses.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the

House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
the interference with the delivery of Her Majesty's mails".
As he knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I do not have to rule on the importance of the question or whether it should be debated, but only whether it should have precedence over all other business.
I have given careful consideration to the representations by the hon. Member, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, Standing Order No. 4 shall not apply to the Motions relating to Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1209) and Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Scotland) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1221), but that the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after they have been entered upon, whichever is the later, and if such Motions are then under consideration Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put any Question which may he requisite to bring to a decision any Question already proposed from the Chair.—[Mr. Coleman.]

MARRIAGE (AMENDMENT)

4.18 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Marriage Act 1949; and for related purposes.
Last July an extraordinary case was reported in the Press of a woman who married at least 50 times to 50 different bridegrooms. She was not a film star, she was not a latter-day Women's Lib Casanova, and she was not a raving beauty. She was merely earning her living in what was, I must admit, a novel way, even if a thoroughly dishonest one. She met her bridegrooms for the first time at the register office door and left them for ever immediately after the ceremony. She was, and probably still is, part of a criminal ring whose objective is to get would-be immigrants into Britain.
According to Scotland Yard, foreigners temporarily in Britain were, and still are, approached by front men who ask them whether they would like to stay here longer and give them certain advice about how this might be achieved. One method is to enrol as a student in an English language school, and the would-be immigrant will almost certainly be given permission to stay an extra six months at least. Apparently after that the marriage brokers move in and offer to arrange a marriage. This is certainly not cheap; the fee is reported by the police as £350, £100 of which goes to the bride. This is a fairly lucrative business because the police estimate that 30 illegal marriages take place in London alone every week.
I raised this matter last summer and was warned off by a threatening telephone call from the man who arranges these things, and who obviously makes a good deal out of them. It is perfectly legal for a woman to marry a foreigner and then to claim the right for him to live and work here. There is nothing whatever to show that the men are aware of the fraudulent nature of what is going on. Certainly they pay a large sum of money, and I think that these bridegrooms deserve the sympathy of the House because they are being conned.
The police were alerted to this busy bride after someone noticed a great similarity of handwriting in letters of

application for these bridegrooms to remain here. This was looked into and handwriting experts found that the writing was, in fact, identical. The case was then proved but it was far too late. The woman in question has never been found.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady but she must not make an Adjournment sort of speech but indicate why the Bill must be introduced.

Mrs. Knight: I was attempting to indicate the case for action in this area, because there is no actual bar in law to what this woman was doing, provided that she and people like her are willing to lie. If people are willing to lie and sign a statement which is a lie, there is nothing to stop them from getting married at Marylebone and Chelsea in the morning and Brompton and Kensington in the afternoon.
We have many laws covering many aspects of weddings, but at present there is no instrument in law which hinders the "rent-a-bride" racket, and there should be. Clause 16 of the original Marriage Act 1949 states that a common marriage licence as distinct from a special licence shall not be granted unless one of the persons to be married swears before the person granting the licence that there is no impediment. Clause 28, which refers specifically to register office weddings, says that notice of marriage must be accompanied by a solemn declaration in writing that there is no impediment to the marriage. If a woman or a man cares to lie, there is no impediment to stop the marriage from taking place. Since the woman in question is known to have married Turks and Cypriots in North-East London, Indians in Southall and Hillingdon, and Egyptions in Kensington, one must recognise that there is a case for this Bill.
At present, all the information that is needed is already in the possession of the authorities. It is put on record when a person is born, when a person marries and if a person is divorced. However, all these records are held in different places. All that my Bill seeks is that all the information should be correlated and computerised and that a system should be introduced which will not only put all this information together but put a duty on the registrar to ensure that the record is


scrutinised to see that a person is free to marry, before the registrar is prepared to go through the ceremony.
This would apply also to church weddings. It would cover not only cases of the kind I have outlined, on which all the information came from Scotland Yard and was all perfectly accurate. Again, I am extremely sorry for the people who are conned in this way. Not only would those people be covered, but the Bill would cover bigamists in general. I am sure that no one in the House would support bigamy, bearing in mind the misery that it causes to many innocent people.
I hope therefore that the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is very concerned about what I might call multiple marriages. I think I am the only Member of the House who can claim to have married hundreds of women—though I hasten to add that I have married them to hundreds of husbands, not to myself.
The title of the Bill that the hon. Lady seeks leave to introduce is quite attractive—the Marriage (Amendment) Bill. I can think of many ways in which marriage ought to be amended, and in which marriage law ought to be amended. However, the question is, what lies behind this apparently attractive, even innocuous, title?
The fact is that the whole thrust of the hon. Lady's argument is concerned with immigration. That is the main thrust of her argument. Indeed, the hon. Lady's statements about the Bill, which are on record in The House Magazine, which is sent to every Member, say that she welcomed the 1975 ruling about wives and fiancées. I was very pleased to hear that. However, the main thrust of her argument is that a racket is going on to use this particular change in the immigration rules so that immigrants can enter and stay in this country in an illegal fashion.
I presume that the hon. Lady is using the word "immigrant" merely as a euphemism, in the main, for coloured immigrants. Indeed, she is on record as saying that the bogus husband is anxious to claim permanent residence for himself

and his dependants. I am not sure what dependants the hon. Lady is thinking of—children or other dependants. However, she should know perfectly well that it is extremely difficult to get other dependants into this country. Those hon. Members who have intervened in cases in which, for example, there is a desire to bring aged relatives into the country know how difficult it is to do that.
I can only conclude that, whatever the apparent merits of the hon. Lady's proposals, she is using this opportunity as a peg on which to hang certain anti-immigrant feelings. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to develop his argument but in temperate language and without interruption from either side.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is a very good argument, too.

Mr. Clemitson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Even if we leave aside the hon. Lady's motive for bringing in this proposal, we must ask ourselves whether her proposal would work. She talks about people lying. If people are prepared to lie, it seems to me that lies can be compounded, and however elaborate is the system of checks that is instituted, those checks can be avoided.
I would have more sympathy with the hon. Lady's proposals if they addressed themselves to some serious causes of difficulty. Perhaps I may briefly mention two cases concerning two of my constituents. The first is that of a woman who, in good faith, married a man at a register office, only to discover subsequently that he had spent well over 20 years in Broadmoor and was a convicted murderer. Indeed, only the intervention of a social worker prevented a probable second tragedy happening.
The second case is that of a constituent of mine from Pakistan who is a British citizen and who wanted his wife to be registered as a British citizen, only to be told by the Home Office that it is was not satisfied that the woman was his wife. He was advised to go to the register office and get married. He went to the register office to marry his wife—of all things—only to be told by the registrar that the


registrar could not marry them because the man was married already.
In short, I find these proposals, at the least, very partial. They do not meet the real problems that a serious reform of marriage law would have to face. Most important, I believe that they are not put forward as a serious attempt to reform marriage law, which needs reforming, but as an opportunity to fuel prejudice against immigrants.

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There must be no imputation of false or unavowed motives against any hon. Member.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 148.

Division No. 363.]
AYES
[4.28 p.m.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Holland, Philip
Rathbone, Tim


Baker, Kenneth
Hooson, Emlyn
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Banks, Robert
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ridsdale, Julian


Beith, A. J.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald
Hurd, Douglas
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Benyon, W.
James, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Biggs-Davison, John
Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Body, Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin


Bradley, Tom
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shersby, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Silvester, Fred


Budgen, Nick
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Burden, F. A.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T.H.H.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Speed, Keith


Carlisle, Mark
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spence, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Clegg, Waller
MacGregor, John
Sproat, lain


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanley, John


Corrie, John
Mates, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Costain, A. P.
Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Crawford, Douglas
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Crouch, David
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Molyneaux, James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Montgomery, Fergus
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Drayson, Burnaby
Morgan, Geraint
Townsend, Cyril D.


Farr, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Fell, Anthony
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Neave, Airey
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Neubert, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Freud, Clement
Nott, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Onslow, Cranley
Wall, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhew, Victor
Osborn, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Gorst, John
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wigley, Dafydd


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Pardoe, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Parkinson, Cecil



Hall, Sir John
Pattie, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Penhaligon, David
Mrs. Jill Knight and


Hannam, John
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Mr. Peter Rost.


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)






NOES


Ashton, Joe
Cartwright, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clemitson, Ivor
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dempsey, James


Bates, Alf
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bean, R. E.
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Conlan, Bernard
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Corbett, Robin
English, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ennals, David


Canavan, Dennis
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Cant, R. B.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Evans, John (Newton)


Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Faulds, Andrew


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)




Forrester, John
Litterick, Tom
Roper, John


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McCartney, Hugh
Ryman, John


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sandelson, Neville


Freud, Clement
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sedgemore, Brian


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Selby, Harry


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Gilbert, Or John
Madden, Max
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Golding, John
Magee, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Ted
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stallard, A. W.


Hamilton, James (Bothwett)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mendelson, John
Stoddart, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stott, Roger


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Strang, Gavin


Hatton, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Tomlinson, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Moonman, Eric
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ward, Michael


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Newens, Stanley
Watkins, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oakes, Gordon
Watkinson, John


John, Brynmor
Ogden, Eric
Weitzman, David


Johnson, James (Hull West)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitlock, William


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ovenden, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kerr, Russell
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Park, George
Woodall, Alec


Lambie, David
Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lamborn, Harry
Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lamond, James
Radice, Giles



Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Richardson, Miss Jo
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Christopher Price and


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Ms. Maureen Colquoun.


Lipton, Marcus
Rooker, J. W

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — WEIGHTS AND MEASURES &c. (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 3

PRE-PACKED AND OTHER GOODS: TEMPORARY RESTRICTION ON REMOVAL OF PERMITTED IMPERIAL QUANTITIES.

'.—(1) The powers to prescribe the quantities in which goods may be made up sold, or made for sale, which are conferred by section 21 of the 1963 Act shall not be exercised so as to make unlawful any sale of goods to which this section applies.

(2) This section applies to a sale—

(a) which is of goods which are prepacked sold, or made for sale in any quantity specified by the enactments and orders in Schedule (Pre-packed and other goods) to this Act (quantities expressed in the imperial system), and
(b) which is made at any time before 21st April 1978.'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.38 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this, we may take Government Amendments No. 17 and No. 21, and Amendment No. 16, in Clause 2, page 3, line 13, at end insert:
'No order may be made applying to weighed out goods sold by retail before 1st January 1980'.
The House will probably know—but I shall repeat what is written on Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments which has been posted in the No Lobby—that New Clause 3 has been wrongly placed at the bottom of page 3001 in the list of amendments. It should have been placed as the first new clause.

Mr. Fraser: The new clause, Government Amendment No. 17, and Government Amendment No. 21—the new schedule—all hang together. Amendment No. 16 is an Opposition amendment.
The Government amendments arise out of an amendment carried in Committee

to insert a number of words which Amendment No. 17 now seeks to remove. I should explain the effect of the amendment which was carried in Committee. There are two defects in its drafting. The first is a minor defect. Cheese is not subject to a prescribed quantity order because it is not generally sold prepacked. The second and perhaps the more serious defect is that the amendment which was carried in Committee does not make clear that "prepacked" means prepacked in prescribed quantities. The two phrases are not synonymous.
That having been said about any drafting defects, the intention of the Committee and of those moving the amendment was absolutely clear. The principle was clear that, for instance, butter, tea and bread should not be subject to what in shorthand we call cut-off orders before 1st January 1980. I counsel the House against choosing 1st January 1980, and I ask it to endorse, and, indeed, to widen substantially, the principle carried in Committee.
The Government seek to substitute 21st April 1978 as the date before which orders proscribing imperial sizes cannot and will not be effective. The effective date worried the Opposition rather more than the actual date when the order was made. I ask the House to choose the alternative date of 21st April 1978 for two reasons. First, choosing 1st January 1980 could mean—I put it no higher—an excessive prolongation of the process of changeover, with all that flows from that in terms of uncertainty, confusion and a lack of framework in which to have orderly planning and, not least, consultation. The effect of choosing 1st January 1980 would be not merely to tie the Government's hands behind their back, but to risk giving the consumer double vision.
Secondly, I ask the House to bear in mind that as from April 1978 metric packs may be freely imported into the United Kingdom. We had the argument in the House and in Committee whether this was likely to happen. I do not intend to pursue that argument now. The truth is that no one really knows the extent to which metric packs will come into this country from April 1978. Nevertheless the risk is there, and it would be unwise not to have the power to bring order into that situation. I say "bring order into that situation". That can be


done only by an affirmative order of both Houses of Parliament. The argument about the date is that it may unduly prolong matters and remove the power to bring about order if there is need to bring order to the situation by 1978.
I have adopted the principle agreed in Committee and made it much wider. The amendment carried in Committee applied—apart from cheese, about which it is defective—to butter, bread and tea. According to the new Schedule it will apply to bread, which was in the original amendment, to milk—I re-emphasise that we do not intend to phase out the pint size—to prepacked potatoes, tea, cereals, flour, all edible fats, not merely butter, and to sugar, salt and jam. Indeed, it will apply to almost every important household food item sold in prescribed quantities. I hope that the House will think that a reasonable response to the principle agreed in Committee and will find it acceptable.
The amendments tabled by the Government have listed a number of prescribed quantity orders which apply only in Great Britain, not in Northern Ireland. Later, in order to make this absolutely clear, I shall ask the leave of the House to move a manuscript amendment. Northern Ireland prescribed quantity orders have always in the past followed British prescribed quantity orders. There is no intention of trying to steal a march in the Province over the safeguards introduced in the United Kingdom.
Turning briefly to the Opposition's amendment, No. 16, I think it would be as well if I heard what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has to say before I attempt to reply. However, there are some problems of drafting, not least because the term "weighed out" foods is not a term of art. We know in our minds what it means, but it is not a term of art. I shall be happy to respond to the need to give some kind of safeguard about weighed-out foods, but I shall wait until the hon. Gentleman has made his speech.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I must utter a mild protest that, as neither the Bill nor all the amendments were tabled until yesterday, life was made a little difficult for the Opposition to table their amendments

in the right form. The Minister has complained about that fact. Nor has life been made any easier by the way that the Department has been behaving. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said on New Clause 3. It is a concession that we welcome.
The Minister said that he accepted the principle that cut-off orders for prescribed quantities will be delayed until 1st April 1978. By that time inflation may be down to a more reasonable level. One of our objections was that the consumer would face considerable confusion with the current level of inflation. We welcome the broadening of the area from tea, bread, butter and cheese to cover a whole range of prescribed quantity goods. That seems the right thing to do.
The effect of the amendment is that for the most important things we shall not have compulsory metrication until 1978. By 1978 I confidently expect that there will be a change of Government, so who is to say that compulsory metrication will ever take place?
I turn now to Amendment No. 16. I am grateful for what the Minister said on weighed-out foods. I do not know whether our amendment is in the right form, but it has been asked for by the retail consortium. Again, we see no reason why weighed-out foods should be subject to metrication. As the House is well aware, there is a considerable problem relating to the manufacture of scales. There are about 250,000 shops, with more than 500,000 scales. All those scales have to be converted at considerable cost—perhaps £700 each. This change ought to be made gradually. The retail consortium thinks likewise. Originally we suggested 1985, but the compromise date of 1980 is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason for hurrying up the process of weighed-out foods beyond that. There is no argument about suppliers producing things in metric quantities and therefore those at the retail end having to harmonise with their suppliers. There is no argument about prescribed quantities, either.
I hope that the Minister will fill in the detail and tell us how he proposes to do this. I hope that it will be across a broad range of goods. I can see no reason why selling carrots or apples in weighed-out quantities in shops should


be illegal. That would be ludicrous. As the scales manufacturers are happy with our amendment, I hope that the Minister will accept the principle.

Mr. Michael Neubert: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), I welcome the Minister's conversion to our point of view, which was advanced on Second Reading and in Committee, that we should not go in a giddy rush towards metrication in prepacked and other goods when common sense and consumer opinion indicate otherwise.
The Minister should not have too many misgivings about his proposal, particularly the advantage of allowing present quantities to continue to be legally used, but there is the difficulty, which we debated in Committee, of the change from imperial to metric sizes. The Minister said in Committee that 4 ounces was equivalent to 113 grammes. I shall have to take the Minister's word for that. But, following a rapid extrapolation, we see that the proposed metric size rounded up nearest to the 4 ounce size would be 125 grammes. One ounce, which is 56½ grammes, would go down to 50 grammes. That would be an example of a size being made smaller and, therefore, the cost of the item would not go up.
One of our major causes for anxiety is that this process will inevitably lead to more expensive goods in the shops, not in terms of value for money but in terms of price for the item. The Minister has cited, rather reluctantly, on more than one occasion the mythical box of cornflakes which would increase by 10 per cent. in size yet by only 5 per cent. in price. He must recognise the danger here. This must not become part of the metrication mythology. There is no inexorable law of logic which says that if we increase size by 10 per cent., the price will go up by 5 per cent.
This example was a bonus for the consumer, but it related to one particular item in those particular circumstances at that particular time. In other instances the price may well go up pro rata. Small income families and pensioners may have difficulty in adjusting to the larger figures and will have the impression that prices are going up unless they appreciate that quantities are also going up.
I refer to the background information on the recently introduced order about tea. In that instance the differential begins to widen with other sizes in that range. For example, 8 oz, which is 226 grammes, is rounded up to 250 grammes. I asked the Minister what examples there would be of rounding down rather than up and he was able to cite only one or two at the lower end of the range.
Although 12 oz is equivalent to 339 grammes, the next size up is 500 grammes. That means that we go down 89 grammes or right up to the half-kilo size, an increase of 161 grammes. As the differential begins to widen, the price becomes increasingly important. That is why the Opposition think that the Minister has made the right decision not rush into these changes.
The Minister should not be too dismayed by the views of bodies such as the National Federation of Consumer Groups, which said:
Any half-and-half stage in which some goods are sold in imperial, others in metric units, will be confusing for consumers and must add to costs.
That is rather overdoing the argument. In fact, in several instances, consumers have been, are and will be transacting purchases in different units, and the problem should be not overstated.
I conclude by welcoming the Government's attitude to these changes, which, I am sure, are in the nation's interests, and particularly in the interests of consumers.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister opened his speech by criticising the drafting of the Opposition amendment in Committee on which this new clause is founded. The present new clause, which the Minister has moved, is also open to certain drafting criticism. As he said, it is the paving clause for the new schedule—Pre-packed and other Goods. The new clause applies to the sale of goods specified in certain enactments and orders listed in the proposed new schedule. Some of them, such as those relating to biscuits, cereals and dried vegetables, come under the heading:
nitted imperial quantities in Orders made under section 21 of the Act of 1963".
Nitted imperial quantities? The mind boggles. This conjures up an interesting


recipe for "nitted" biscuits, "nitted" breakfast cereals or "nitted" shortbread. I am sure the Minister will put that right.
To be more serious, the way in which the new schedule sets out enactments and orders is a little inelegant. An order is an enactment and it is rather confusing to call them "enactments and orders" as the new clause does.
I refer to the very last order printed in the new schedule:
The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Bread) Order 1976".
This is about the third or fourth bread order that we have had in 12 months and I suppose that these orders will go on in future in the same form as in the past until 21st April 1978—the date mentioned by the Minister. They will be permissive orders. There is no doubt that it will be necessary to have these interesting orders from time to time, as it has been in the past, but they will be permissive, not mandatory.
The other peculiarity in the drafting of New Clause 3 is when it speaks about
The powers to prescribe the quantities in which goods may be made up sold, or made for sale,
Does "made up sold" mean sold made up? This again conjures up the interesting image of mascaraed biscuits, or powdered flour, or lipsticked sugar. Surely it means "sold made up". The new clause also uses the phrase "made for sale", but surely that means made up for sale. All goods are made for sale. These phrases are confusing and create some difficulties in interpretation.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), when he complains that Government amendments appeared on the Order Paper at the last moment and that the Bill was not printed until the day before we were to discuss it on Report. This means that it is impossible for the Opposition to suggest amendments to the right lines or the right clauses. It is impossible for us to make any constructive suggestions or to put down amendments to Government amendments. If they had appeared on the Order Paper earlier, I would have taken an opportunity to put down a few amendments to tidy up what I would call bad drafting.

Mr. John Fraser: I suppose that it is a matter of congratulation for the right

hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that, no matter how late the Bill is published, it does not seem to have been much of an impediment to his putting down amendments. The amendments on the Order Paper are a reflection of the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity.
It would be silly to allege or assert that everytime there is a conversion from imperial to metric the cost will not be pro rata. So far, we have had some encouraging examples. I have given the example of cornflakes. Another relates to dried vegetables. The old 8 oz pack costs 13½p the new 250 gramme pack will cost 14½p. Thus, the consumer will get 10 per cent. more product for 7½ per cent. more money.
The new metric pack for salt will contain 10 per cent. more salt, but the price will increase by only ½p or 1p—an average increase of only 5 per cent.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Is the Minister satisfied that the prices to which he refers are due to the physical metrication of the goods and not to other movements of costs which happen to be brought into line when the change in pack from imperial to metric takes place?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: I cannot say. I am quoting examples of cases in which there is 10 per cent. more in the pack and not 10 per cent. more on the price.
I received assurances from the sugar manufacturers and packers of a marginal decrease in the price of sugar. I do not exaggerate the importance of this, but there was a small decrease in price of sugar delivered to the retail store.
One reason why the consumer organisations prefer the 125-gramme pack is that the increase in size benefits the consumer, because the ratio of packaging to product diminishes. There is no heavy balance on either side, but the chances are that there will be a reduction in the price rather than an increase.
In an earlier debate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) was concerned about increases in prices because of the changeover. In response to the concern expressed both inside and outside the House, we changed the Bill to contain the provision that associates with the changeover from imperial to metric compulsory unit pricing, and so


on. We have to give the maximum degree of reassurance to the consumer when we go metric.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) says that I am a convert to Gradualism. I am not a convert to gradualism in this area, but there are areas in which I might agree with the concept of the inevitability of gradualism. I agree that the right way to go about this matter is to take Parliament along with us.
The right hon. Member for Crosby was critical of the wording, including the phrase "made up for sale". The wording has been weighed extremely carefully. "Making for sale" refers specifically to bread. "Sale" refers specifically to intoxicating liquor. The other words all have their appropriate place.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) asked about weighed-out foods. The drafting of the amendment is not wholly adequate, and I cannot recommend the House to accept it both for drafting and other reasons. Weighed-out foods are not defined in the Bill and it would be extremely difficult to define them. The amendment does not make clear whether the restriction is intended to apply to the making of an order before 1st January 1980 or to the sale of goods before 1st January 1980. The more serious problem—this is not a drafting matter—is that foods which are weighed out are often closely linked to goods which have already gone metric or which are likely to go metric whether or not we have the Bill.
To give an example, sugar has gone metric on a voluntary basis, facilitated by an order of the House, but it may still be possible to buy weighed-out sugar in certain quantities. That is an example of an item which is weighed-out, though rarely, although the bulk of the product is sold in metric quantities. If we provided for weighed-out sales of every product, those sales might represent only 1 per cent. of the pre-packed sales of the product, and we should start to get into difficulties and might create the very confusion which the Bill is intended to remove.
I have recognised in answers to Parliamentary Questions and in discussions with consumer organisations that there

is concern about weighed-out foods such as greengrocery, fresh fruit, fresh meat products in butchers' shops and fish. In those areas people are most concerned that there should not be early progression to metrication. I want to give the House a firm and solemn undertaking on the principle of the amendment in relation to those products.
The Government will not use the new powers under Section 9A to impose any cut-off dates for imperial units in respect of the three main retail weighed-out foods sectors. Those are the sectors which have caused the greatest concern and which cover the preponderance of weighed-out foods. They are greengrocers and fruiterers, butchers and fishmongers. No orders will be made to operate before 1st January 1980. This assurance is in line with my previous statements that the Government take the view that these sectors should be the last to change over. This assurance relates to the date of the implementation of possible orders, not to the date for bringing draft orders before the House. Because of the planning periods involved and the need for certainty in the trade, not least among scale manufacturers, it may be necessary to make such orders well before the effective date.

Mr. Norman Lamont: How long in advance has the Minister in mind for the making of such orders?

Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman asking how much time will elapse between the making of an order and its implementation?

Mr. Norman Lamont: Yes.

Mr. Fraser: I repeat, it would be wrong to lay down a rigid timetable. When the Bill has been enacted I hope to give the House and the country a tentative timetable, as I said at the end of my speech in the Second Reading debate. That tentative timetable for the changeover will be decided after background consultations and negotiations inside and outside the House. If we went further than that we should be becoming rigid and arrogant.

Mr. Stanley Newens: I take it that the Minister still believes that it is necessary to have cut-off orders, and is saying that, although there will be delay


beyond that previously envisaged, orders will still be laid and cut-off dates will be fixed. Why should not the imperial measurement merely be allowed to wither away?

Mr. Fraser: The withering away would take so long that it would not facilitate the needs of the consumer but, rather, work to his disadvantage. That is not simply my view. It is the unanimous view of every responsible consumer organisation in the country.
The date of 1st January 1980 is not a target date for the metrication of the weighed-out foods I mentioned. It is not a deadline; it is a minimum date. If weighed-out foods such as meat, fruit and vegetables and fish are the last in the queue, their place will depend on how many other products get into the queue in front of them.
I hope that the House will appreciate both the value of the undertaking I have given and its solemnity. If the Opposition are prepared to withdraw their amendment, the undertaking will have the endorsement of the Government, the Conservative Opposition and, I assume, the Scottish National Party and other parties. The undertaking would thereby be endorsed by virtually every major party in Parliament. If any Minister tried to bring in an order which breached the undertaking, that undertaking could be thrown into the Minister's teeth. For the reasons given, I hope that the House will decline to accept Amendment No. 16 and will endorse the serious and solemn pledge which I have given.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene prior to my hon. Friend who will be winding up the debate. I wish to speak particularly about Amendment No. 16. In accepting New Clause 3 and some of the arguments put forward in Committee, the Government are being both rational and agreeable.
The Minister stated his intention to exempt meat, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables but he is, therefore, excluding a number of other things, including confectionery. In Amendment No. 16 we have in mind not only the period of conversion required for the metrication of weighing scales but also the sheer size of the problem. There are about 300,000 retail outlets, many of which have scale

sales. Confectioners are typical. The smaller shop carries a large range of goods and frequently sells vegetables and fish, for instance, alongside sweets and cigarettes. It is in such shops that the problem really arises and the cut-off date is, therefore, most at risk. I urge the Minister to consider whether he may not be ignoring the type of shop where the greatest difficulty could arise—the smaller mixed shop, such as a confectioner's, where loose weighed-out goods are sold alongside packed goods. Will the Minister also consult those who are responsible for retail confectionery, for example, and for small shopkeepers?

Mr. Norman Lamont: We are grateful to the Minister. He has made a substantial concession.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) made several arguments which I shall back up. We are sorry that the Minister cannot include confectionery and we urge him to reconsider. As my hon. Friend emphasised, that will cause confusion in shops which sell a mixture of goods including those that are to be exempt and those that are not. Hon. Members have argued that one cannot have one rule for this and another for that because it would cause confusion. That is particularly important for the small retailer who sells vegetables and fish as well as confectionery. I urge the Minister to consider that argument.
I was not clear of the Minister's meaning when he spoke of goods related to those sold in metric quantities. He gave the example of sugar, but that is an insignificant example. I am sceptical about his argument. The Minister has, however, exempted meat, fresh fruit, fish and vegetables, which are most important products. All those concerned will be grateful for his undertaking and for that reason we will not move our amendment.

Mr. Newens: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that if there were a Conservative Government there would probably be no metrication at all. Will he clarify the position? If the Conservatives become responsible, shall we still have the cut-off dates or not?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I said that in relation to prescribed quantities we would see what happened. We


will tell him precisely what we think of the Bill on Third Reading. We will explain our attitude to the principle of the measure. He was not a member of the Committee but even he must notice that we strongly object to the principle of conversion.
I return to the amendment. We agree with the Minister's proposal. On the understanding that his undertaking is absolutely copper-bottomed we shall not move Amendment No. 16.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: It would be discourteous if I did not reply to the hon. Members for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). I know of no shops from which I buy both fish and sweets at the same time. If they exist, I do not buy fish or sweets in them.
Much of the greengrocery and fruit trade is carried on not by combines but by those with their own businesses, or corner shops. That is also largely true of the sale of fresh meat and fish. I hope my undertaking covers the area about which the public is concerned.
I was asked to give an example, apart from sugar, of a product which has gone or is going metric but which is still weighed out. Confectionery is a good example. From the beginning of next year most sales of prepacked confectionery will be in metric quantities and they will be sold alongside weighed-out quantities. I agree that there could be confusion if imperial and metric measurements are used side by side.
The National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers takes the view that there would be a large degree of metrication effort for butchers, greengrocers, fruiterers and fishmongers. It believes that relatively less metrication effort is required in the confectionery and tobacco trades, the reason being that the scales used in confectionery shops are uncomplicated and can be converted quickly. I do not want to make a judgment, but whatever sector is involved there will be extensive consultation and I hope that that will reassure hon. Members.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The Minister must be clear about the size of the problem. About 28 per cent. of confectionery is sold by

weigh-out. Even though small shops may use unsophisticated and easily-converted scales, we are talking of nearly 2,000 million sales of quarter-pound quantities. Confusion will be caused particularly if in adjacent shops some goods are sold in imperial quantities and others in metric quantities near the cut-off date. I welcome the Minister's decision to consult.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 1

SAVING FOR EXISTING CONTRACTS

No order or regulation made under sections 1, 9A or 9B of the 1963 Act (as amended by this Act) or under section 8 of this Act shall during the period of one year beginning with the date on which the Act is passed affect any contract or agreement entered into before that date notwithstanding that it relates to the delivery of goods after that date.— [Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause had to be drafted before the reprint of the Bill as amended in Standing Committee B was available. As a result, there is an error in the second line. It refers to Section 8, which is now Section 10. However, I think that that can be put right. I am in very good company, because on the last page of the Bill as reprinted exactly the same thing has happened. In the top left-hand corner there is a reference to Section 11(4), which should now be Section 13(4). I hope that the Minister will alter that.
The clause seeks to ensure that the new order-making powers given to the Secretary of State by the Bill will not be used in a manner which would invalidate existing civil contracts. It is narrower than New Clause 3, because it refers only to existing contracts. So far as my clause may be unprecedented, so far as it may be a new provision in the law, it is made necessary by the fundamental change in the law that results from the Bill, namely, that by the repeal of Section 10(10) of the 1963 Act an order by the Secretary of State will be permitted in future—to use the words of Section 10(10)—
to cause the exclusion from use for trade of imperial in favour of metric units of measurement, weights and measures.


Therefore, these are new powers to make such mandatory orders. They will be made under the sections to which I have referred in the clause—
sections 1, 9A or 9B of the 1963 Act (as amended by this Act) or under section 8 of this Act".
Section 1(2) of the 1963 Act is a paving section for Schedule 1 of that Act. Schedule 1 defines units of measurement by virtue of Section 1(2), which states:
Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect for defining for the purposes of measurements falling to be made in the United Kingdom the units of measurement set out in that Schedule".
Schedule 1 had a greater effect than merely that of a definition schedule. Section 10(1) provided that no person should use for trade any unit which was not included in that schedule. The Bill repeals subsection (1) and will leave Schedule 1 merely as a definition schedule—the Minister reminded me of that several times in Committee—but in two respects Schedule 1 may have a greater effect than merely as a declaratory schedule defining certain units. For example, one may use the words "metre" or "litre" in a contract. In Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act both are defined as having
the meaning from time to time assigned by order by the Board".
Therefore, the meaning can change from time to time. If a change is made by order, it could without warning alter the effect of a contract. All that I am seeking in the clause is a warning period before a contract is so invalidated.
Secondly, Clause 1(2) inserts in Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act headed:
Definitions of units which may not be used for trade".
I presume that that means what it says, and that any of the units set out there may not be used for trade. If one uses such a unit in a trading contract, the contract must be invalid, void and unlawful. By Clause 1(1) the Secretary of State is given power by order to amend Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act
by adding to, or removing from, Parts I to VA of that Schedule any unit of measurement".
He might, for example, by order put the cubic yard into Part VA, with the result that it becomes a measurement which can no longer be used, and thereby

invalidate at once a contract based on it, unless the House accepts my new clause.
A similar position could well arise as a result of orders made under the new Section 9A, introduced into the 1963 Act by Clause 2. The new section begins by saying:
(1) No person shall—
(a) use for trade any unit of measurement which is not included in Schedule 1A".
It later refers in the same way to Schedule 3. Subsection (3) of the new Section 9A says:
The Secretary of State may from time to time by order amend Schedule 1A or 3 to this Act".
If the Secretary of State amends the schedules in such a way as to make an otherwise lawful unit unlawful, it seems to me to make invalid a civil contract based on those units. In that case the position is perhaps even worse, because under Section 9A(2)
A person who contravenes—
(a) this section"—
and therefore an order which has altered the section—
shall be guilty of an offence".
Therefore, an early warning system such as I have suggested is only fair and just to the trader.
Regulations made under the new Section 9B, also introduced into the 1963 Act by Clause 2, may not be quite so disastrous to existing contracts, but Section 9B(3) is drawn so widely that one cannot forecast what such regulations may contain. They may certainly affect existing contracts.
Clause 10 creates an entirely new order-making power. The Secretary of State is there empowered to "exclude or modify" existing statute law. If he does so, that may affect contracts based on existing law, and those contracts should be protected, at least for a period.
The Minister's answer may be, as it was in part in Committee, that orders made under the new order-making powers will contain a saving article similar in effect to new Clause 1. He may give us that assurance, but it is not in the Bill. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to protect existing civil contracts when the orders and regulations are made. If that is the Secretary of State's


intention, I ask him to write it into the Bill by means of new Clause 1. It is necessary to make the provision obligatory and not leave it merely to the hope that there will be a saving article or regulation when the orders or regulations are made.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that his clause is in part inadequate, in part unnecessary, and in part inferior to what is already in the Bill.
Let me deal first with the argument that the clause is inadequate. If protection is needed to save a contract, it needs to be a permanent saving and not a temporary one for one year.
Secondly, the clause is in part unnecessary in relation to Clause 1 which is linked to Schedule 1, because Schedule I will be the record of definition. One of the reasons that we wish to have a schedule of record is so that we may have set out a catalogue of measures for the purpose of interpreting contract documents.
The use of a measure that is no longer valid if used by way of trade does not necessarily invalidate the contract. If the definition of a unit is changed, as the definiton of "litre" was recently changed, the statutory instrument always contains savings in respect of the existing contracts. I doubt whether there will be changes in Schedule 1. Indeed, I think that the schedule will remain as an archive for many years to come alongside other measures which are to be, if not put to rest, preserved for posterity.
Thirdly, the clause is inferior to what is already in the Bill because Clauses 2 and 10 already contain powers to make savings for existing contracts in respect of orders made under Sections 9A or 9B of the 1963 Act. That will be a permanent power—a power which the right hon. Gentleman by a later amendment seeks to leave out—but certainly the power exists to make savings for existing contracts. That kind of power has always been used in the past and always will be used in the future. I hope that in view of what I have said the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the clause.

Mr. Graham Page: I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's reply, and I shall take his three points in turn.
First he said that this should be a permanent saving. I am sure that if I were to draft New Clause 1 including the word "permanently", the Minister would shout me down immediately. I was merely asking for a warning to those who have already entered into civil contracts, to make plain that those contracts would be terminated within a year. I thought that was a reasonable way in which to put it. Indeed, I am surprised that the Minister should throw out the clause, because I have been so moderate. I can be far more violent if he wishes, but I have advanced a model suggestion.
The Minister also said that the clause was unnecessary in regard to Schedule 1. I shall not repeat my argument on that matter. The Minister may read my remarks in Hansard tomorrow if he wishes to do so.
The Minister then said that an order does not necessarily invalidate a contract. That is correct; but orders making certain units unlawful in use may make civil contracts invalid, and indeed unlawful, if one continues to deliver goods under those contracts at the old weights or measures.
The hon. Gentleman said that orders always contain a saving clause. He was being contradictory, because he first said that the clause was unnecessary and he then said that orders would have a saving provision. I am not happy to accept a statement that in the past orders have always had this saving. Parliament will now by the Bill impose a mandatory change in weights and measures and units of measurement. In those circumstances we should make certain that orders contain saving clauses, and not merely trust to precedents.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 2

CONSULTATIONS

'Before making any regulations under section 9B of the 1963 Act (as amended by this Act) the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations.'—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 9, in Clause 2, page 5, line 8, at end insert:
'and to inform such organisations of the probable contents of regulations which the Secretary of State may consider it expedient to make in connection with or supplementary to the said order.'

Mr. Page: The clause deals with the question of consultation on orders before they come into effect. By Section 54 of the 1963 Act it was recognised that before making any orders under 10 different provisions of that Act, the Secretary of State should
consult … representatives of interests substantially affected".
I am using the actual words of Section 54 of the 1963 Act, and, indeed, I seek to introduce those words into New Clause 2.
This Bill, having introduced two new order-making powers in Clause 1 and via Section 9A of the 1963 Act, has added those powers to the list in Section 54 of the 1963 Act. Therefore, it has been thought necessary to make statutory provision for prior consultation with the representatives of people who will be interested in what is taking place.
I wish now to examine whether it is right that Section 9A orders should require prior consultation but that Section 9B orders should not.

Mr. John Fraser: I am prepared in principle to accept the right hon. Gentleman's clause. I shall pose the dilemma in a moment, but I intervene at this point in order to shorten the proceedings.

Mr. Page: Is the Minister prepared to accept the clause and its wording as drafted?

Mr. John Fraser: I shall pose the dilemma in a moment, but I am prepared to accept the principle. There is a conflict between the way in which the right hon. Gentleman puts the matter and the recommendation set out in the Renton Report.

Mr. Page: I am sorry that the Minister did not table his own amendment. He now says that he accepts the principle in

mine. It is not easy for Opposition Members to draft the right provisions. The Parliamentary draftsmen dislike whatever we table for consideration.
I would ask the House to accept the clause as it stands. If the Minister says that he accepts it in principle, surely there can be little wrong with the wording, which I have taken from the 1963 Act.
The point I was trying to make when the Minister intervened—and I am grateful to him for that intervention—was that consultation on orders made under Section 9B will be even more important than those made under Section 9A. Orders made under Section 9A will make the move from imperial to metric. By the time the Bill reaches the statute book people will be resigned to it as the major change that will take place under the Bill, but the important consideration in a person's mind will be, "How shall I understand the change'? How shall I prevent myself from doing something wrong when I make a mental conversion? How can I stop myself being swindled by the new measures?" Therefore, orders under Section 9B will be of vital importance to the public, and all interested representatives should be consulted.
Let us suppose that the Secretary of State and his officials become so steeped in the intricacies of conversion that they issue an order that every petrol pump should contain a notice saying that one gallon shall be described as 4·54609 litres or that one litre shall be described as 0·21997 gallons. These are not the sorts of conversion tables that will tell the public anything. It will be no help if one is told that a kilogramme of butter is equal to 2·2046 lb. The public and the House should be consulted before these vitally important matters are put into an order and before the order is laid before the House with no possibility of amendment.
Matters are even worse with Section 9B. These orders can affect specific and individual cases, specific circumstances and specific individuals. There certainly should be something written into the statute making it obligatory for the Secretary of State to consult. There is no obligation at present. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of


the clause it should be written into the Bill.
I must refer to Amendment No. 9, which is being taken with this new clause. The amendment deals with the possibility of an order under 9B being made to supplement an order under 9A. I wish to ensure by this amendment that when the Minister consults representatives of those interested in the contents of an order under 9A he will inform those representatives of what he has in mind to implement that 9A order by the more detailed 9B order. That is a simple statement. I am sure no one can object to it being put into the Bill so that those interested may know what is coming in the later order or the order which will implement the orders under 9A.
However good and genuine the intention of the Minister may be to consult, there is not that obligation under the statute except in the case of certain orders. I want to extend it so that there is an obligation to consult on orders which, I submit, will be of vital importance to the public.

Mr. John Fraser: Let me deal with the practice, which must be well known to the right lion Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) from the time when he was a Minister. Most regulations involve a good deal of consultation. I gave some examples in Committee of the sort of consultation that goes on in connection with regulations which are analogous to those which will be made under 9B. The best example I can give concerns the dual-marking regulations. These were negative procedure regulations because the Conservative Government in 1963 decided that they should be so. There was no statutory requirement to consult under the 1963 legislation. I make no party point about this.
We consulted 253 trade organisations, 19 consumer organisations and 20 enforcement officer organisations, and we held a total of 292 consultations. We were not even required to consult any one of those organisations. When we considered the order dealing with unit pricing of cheese, which used the negative procedure and was enacted by a Labour Government, there was a statutory requirement to consult. We consulted 32 trade organisations, 20 consumer organ-

isations and five enforcement officer organisations, and held a total of 57 consultations. The regulation dealing with price displays in pubs, which again was a negative resolution regulation, embodied a statutory requirement to consult. We consulted 19 people in the trade, 19 consumer organisations and four enforcement officer organisations, and held a total of 42 consultations.
I can give further examples. We always consult. In principle, I am happy to accept the new clause. There is a dilemma, however, and since the right hon. Gentleman takes a delight in these matters of drafting statutory instruments perhaps I can explain it to him. The Renton Report dealing with the drafting of legislation recommended that amendments like this ought to be textual and not made by way of a new clause. It suggested that there should be a textual interpolation rather than an addition by way of a new clause. The way in which the new clause is drafted runs contrary to the recommendations of the Renton Committee.
If the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House would like to take it upon themselves to defy the recommendations of the Renton Report I shall not quarrel with that. I simply say that the responsibility will belong elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman can then have the statutory requirement to consult on 9B orders. I hope that that is satisfactory.
Turning to Amendment No. 9— —

5.45 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about this not being a textual amendment, I am sure that he will realise that it was difficult to table such an amendment when the Bill was not published.

Mr. Fraser: I do understand that. However, it could have been drafted as a textual amendment to the 1963 Act. I do not want to prolong our proceedings by reading from the Renton Report. I simply draw it to the attention of the House.
Turning to Amendment No. 9, I have to point out that there is statutory provision for consultation under Section 9A orders. I would have thought that it was


not necessary to write this wording into the Bill. Clearly it would be in the forefront of the minds of consumers and of the Government that the supplemental order would be an essential part of the negotiations. It is superfluous to add the requirement contained in Amendment No.9.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT LAWFUL FOR USE FOR TRADE

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 33, at beginning insert:
'Subject to subsection (3A) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Fraser: This is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 3. It amounts to a restriction, to be written into the Bill in subsection (3), of the Secretary of State's powers to amend Schedules 1A and 3. Amendment No. 2 deletes the restriction on the phasing-out from use for trade purposes of certain units which were written into the Bill by an Opposition amendment carried in Committee. The principle has, however, been accepted and a Government amendment has been tabled which will have much the same effect—although not an identical effect—as that Opposition amendment.
I turn now to the substantial amendment in this group, which is Amendment No. 3. This substitutes a new form of words for the words that we seek to delete by Amendment No. 2. I have looked carefully at the effects of the Opposition amendment that was carried in Committee, which related to the inch, the foot, the mile, the pint and the gallon.
The Opposition amendment would have a number of effects. First, it would prevent the wholesale abolition of the mile, the inch, the foot and the pint and would require further legislation to introduce a power to sweep away these units of measurement, across the board. The

Government have decided to accept that principle. Secondly, the Opposition amendment, except in relation to the sale of motor fuel, would not prejudice orders enabling the Government to restrict the measures in particular sectors of the trade.
The second effect of the Opposition amendment would be to preserve the use of the gallon for the sale of motor fuel. The amendment as drafted would have that effect. Indeed, it was intended to have the effect of preventing the metrication of the sale of motor fuel. The gallon, for the sale of motor fuel, is already phased out except at retail level. The spirit of the Opposition amendment in Committee would have been contrary to existing practice in all but the retail trade in the sale of motor fuel.
We have some serious problems about the use of imperial measure for petrol pumps. First, virtually every pump now manufactured in this country is metric. We have the cost of converting to imperial, and not the other way round. A second and increasingly serious problem is that the older pumps are unable to cope with deliveries at high unit costs. One day we shall have to convert in the interests of the consumer. Over the past few years about 20,000 new pumps have been sold with imperial-metric facilities in expectation of metrication—about one-sixth of the total number of pumps.
The added complexity of dual facilities results in a minimum additional cost of £10 for single-grade models and £20 for blenders. Those figures do not include the hidden indirect costs arising from the need to maintain a non-standard United Kingdom production. As exports consist almost entirely of metric pumps, the indirect costs have an effect on the United Kingdom industry's competitive edge in selling to other countries. However, some 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of total production goes for export. Metric provision for the home market would give greater scope for increased exports.
The problem has become so serious that recently we have had to authorise the sale of petrol from some of the older pumps at half unit pricing. I am not trying to make out an argument for the immediate transition from the sale of petrol in gallons to its sale in litres. I have never


proposed to do that in any sector. I have always said that such a decision would be subject to consultation and judgment as to the practicability and desirability of the change. I feel that the House would be imprudent not to recognise the possibility of that change taking place.
The Government amendment leaves Parliament free to debate the terms of the sale of motor fuel. It leaves it free to debate and deal with the matter on some future occasion, but in the meantime it allows into the Bill a safeguard against the gallon being swept away right across the board in one fell swoop. Of all the items that were mentioned in the Opposition amendment, the only change is in respect of motor fuel. I hope that the way in which I have put the matter will commend itself to the House as a reasonable compromise.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am extremely gratified that the Government have been forced to introduce Amendment No. 3 as a direct consequence of the victory that the Conservative Opposition enjoyed in having a similar amendment carried in Committee. At one time it looked very much as if the Minister of State would not budge an inch, or, rather, 2·54 centimetres as we should have been forced to say if we had not won the amendment in Committee and if the Minister had not accepted at least the spirit of the amendment and produced his own version of it.
The House should not be under any misapprehension as to the significance of the amendment. We have won for the country the preservation of the foot, the inch, the mile, the pint and the gallon. We no longer depend on ministerial undertakings or assurances, as the amendment is being made to the Bill. This is a significant achievement. It is just as well that this has happened, because as recently as 11th October the Minister, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), said:
The completion of the metrication programme will eventually mean changing to kilometres, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not by any means a priority."—[Official Report, 11th October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 24.]
The Minister has made the right conversion from metric back to imperial, and we are grateful, but as I look at the

Labour Benches and recall the debates in Committee I ask myself where the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) is to be found, the advocate of the CBI, the NFU and other such powerful organisations. The hon. Gentleman is nowhere to be seen, and he was the sole voice in support of the Minister of State. The Secretary of State is sitting beside the Minister of State and looking robust, but he is silent on this occasion. Who is here to support the Minister? I cannot imagine for one moment that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has come here to support him.

Mr. John Page: Or the CBI.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Indeed. Such organisations are now totally bereft of their advocates. We now have the Government, the Opposition and the consumer. Perhaps that is as it should be.
The Government have substituted their own amendment for the one that we inserted in Committee. As we have heard, they have done so for drafting purposes. The argument was pretty narrow, but that has often been the position when debating these matters. So be it. We shall be magnanimous on this occasion. We have won so much, and if the Government want to make a narrow drafting point we are prepared to accept it. In doing so, we accept the superiority of the Government draftsmen if nothing else. The important thing—the House and the country should recognise this—is that we have won the argument.
During the debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House the Minister of State professed his perplexity as to how the mile could possibly be used as a term of trade or a measurement of something sold. I remember his saying in Committee—I do not wish to misquote him—that people did not buy a mile of wire or a mile of sausages. That is fair enough, but one thing that is sold by the mile in every city, town and village is the service sold by taxis. I remember the time when they used to sell it at 8d. a mile. That was a long time ago. I hope that we shall have no more argument along those lines from the Minister of State. Although the mile, for the sake of speed limits and road signs, will not come within the Bill, I hope that the precedent


created in the amendment will be noted by those who will be dealing with related legislation at a later stage.
I am still concerned about the gallon of petrol. The Minister's arguments have not convinced me entirely. He said that one-sixth of the retail petrol trade is now using metric pumps and that they are having to be converted to imperial measuring. Clearly, that is a very small proportion of the total number of pumps. Surely we must consider the inconvenience to consumers when, before very long, they will have to multiply by two the price registered on the pumps because of difficulties with the metering equipment. When petrol goes metric they will not only have to multiply by two but carry out an additional calculation to decide how many litres they need to travel a certain distance and how many litres they can afford when making a comparison of price between the litre and the gallon. That is not a small point, and it is unfortunate that the Minister has not accepted that part of the amendment, although I accept that he has moved quite a long way.
We have a compromise amendment although the batle has been won. A peace treaty has been negotiated. This is a historic amendment in the annals of metrication. It means for the British people that the mile, the foot, the inch, the pint and the gallon can remain in legal usage as long as the people, through their elected representatives, wish them to remain. Through the amendment, we have avoided the statutory ban. Above all, we have shown that when the people really want something, and when their representatives in this House put their case and stick to it through thick and thin, despite all the representations made by the high-pressure organisations, the CBI, the NFU, the TUC, and so on, and their advocates, that case must prevail. I hope that in some small way this victory will renew the jaded faith that some of our people have in parliamentary democracy. I thank the Minister of State for his contribution through the amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. George Thompson: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said that the amendment was due to the Tory Opposition. It should be put on record that it was very

much due to the Scottish National Party Opposition in this House. It was also due to my own humble efforts by voting in the right direction—a vote which struck a blow for the people who have not yet been brainwashed into metrication. It shows that, once in a while, with a bit of luck in a Standing Committee, Governments can be made to shift their position. To that extent, this case vindicates parliamentary democracy, and I am glad that I was there to add my weight in the right direction.

Mr. John Page: I feel that we are witness to a new edition of "Dr. Finlay's Casebook". I acknowledge that it was through the assistance of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) that this important blow was struck for British traditions and the weight of public opinion.
It is particularly disappointing for me that the Secretary of State left in a huff a few minutes ago. I was going to say some extremely nice things about him. I was going to congratulate him on being appointed Secretary of State. I debated on so many occasions with him when he was at the Department of Employment that I am glad to see that he has received what I consider to be a just reward in a very difficult Department.
I was also going to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, through the Minister of State, he had become a standard-bearer for British imperial traditions. I was going to point out to him that some people are born to greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman, through the agency of the Minister of State, has had greatness thrust upon him as the Secretary of State who took this right and important decision. But all that the right hon. Gentleman did while my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) was speaking was to sit looking grumpy and disapproving in a superior way, rather like a bishop looking in the window of a sex shop. I thought that that was hardly worthy of the occasion.
We are grateful to the Minister of State for the complicated way in which he introduced the amendment. I do not quite understand the new aspect of the position of the gallon. As I understand it, the gallon will be able to remain permanently,


not only in connection with the sale of petrol but in connection with the sale of any other articles. Is that correct?

Mr. John Fraser: The position is that the Government are denied the opportunity even of putting an order to the House to disqualify the use of the gallon universally across the board, without prejudice—indeed, the Opposition amendment in Committee was on the same lines—to the power to introduce particular restrictions, but then again only with the affirmative consent of the House of Commons.

Mr. Page: I am grateful that that has been made clear to me. Unfortunately I seldom buy a gallon of beer, although I expect that the hon. Member for Galloway often buys a gallon of whisky. That is something that we can now usefully continue to do. However, it is no part of my objective to waste the time of the House by over-indulgence in satisfaction. I think that this is the end of the present road. It is the end of the present road on which we were not sure whether we would be continuing in kilometres or miles. Now we are entering a new road, the measurement distances of which we know.
The decision which the Government have sensibly made today is among the few which, during my 16 years in this place, have been totally in accord with the views of the ordinary man and woman in the street. I am thankful to say that at least, thanks to the Conservative Front Bench, the Union Jack has been nailed to the mast in the pubs and petrol stations of this country.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that occasionally there is merit in hon. Members who did not serve on a Standing Committee, and, therefore, who do not aspire to any expertise in the matter under discussion, commenting on the achievement of their colleagues who did serve in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) knows, I have not been entirely in agreement with the attitude that she and her colleagues have taken through the Bill, but in this case I congratulate her most warmly on a signal victory for common sense, for public opinion and for the future of the

pubs, the motorist and many other people.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and I were at the then transport part of the Department of the Environment during the Conservative Government, we discovered that preparations had already started on the repainting of signs in kilometres in anticipation of the possible will of the House of Commons. He and I found this extraordinary, and I think that I can quite properly reveal that he put a stop to it—at least, he did his part in doing so. It is right that, now that the Conservative Party, with such assistance as the Scottish National Party was able to provide, has succeeded in retaining the mile, the foot and the inch, that should be properly recorded.
Presumably, subsection (3) of the clause allows the Government
without prejudice to the power … to add. vary or remove any restriction—".
The Minister of State has made plain how he sees that, but I hope that he will feel it appropriate to intervene again if only to help one who was not a member of the Standing Committee by underlining what I understand to be the case—that it is not within the intention of the Government to seek to vary the sale of goods in gallons, feet or inches. I understood him to say that.

Mr. John Fraser: Perhaps I may make the position clear. Leaving motor fuel aside for the moment, the effect of the Opposition's amendment would have been to prevent the Government from removing for use for trade across the board generally the inch, the foot, the mile, the pint and the gallon. We have accepted that principle, but without prejudice to the right—used in the past in other circumstances—to restrict the use of one of those units of measurment in a particular sphere of trade. Right up to the retail level, the gallon is not used for the sale of motor fuel, and it might one day be sensible to restrict its use right up to the retail point.
The amendment is without prejudice to that power and without prejudice to asking for a further restriction on sale at retail level. But that would still be open to debate, and it would still require


the affirmative consent of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Mr. Griffiths: That explanation makes it crystal clear. The reasons for the Minister's reservation are perfectly apparent, and they are acceptable to me.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester again. She will be able to remain "five feet two with eyes of blue" for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Erie S. Heller: I think that the Government also should be congratulated, in the sense that at least they are accepting the amendment without having any particular argument against it.
I understand what happened in the Committee. For very good reasons, one of the members of the Government side was not there. I am absolutely delighted that he was not there, because anyway I think that the whole Bill has been a bit of a nonsense. I voted against it on Second Reading. I am not sure whether I shall do so on Third Reading, because I think that there will be collusion between the two Front Benches to ensure that the Bill goes through, and I do not particularly want to waste my vote. But the Bill really is a bit of nonsense, and anything at all which helps to mitigate that nonsense is a good job well done.
If there are to be congratulations, let me congratulate the Conservative Front Bench and those hon. Members who voted in a particular way. I also congratulate the Government now on putting forward the amendment and accepting the arguments that were made.
I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in the House this afternoon. I have tried to accept some of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have tried to believe that something positive is being achieved in this measure. I regret to say, however, that I cannot find anything positive whatsoever, and in that sense I am an old imperialist—an unashamed imperialist—in this matter. Nevertheless, despite the unnecessary nature of the Bill, there is something positive in it that is worth supporting. If there were a vote on it—which there will not be—I would willingly vote for that part of it, if not for the Bill as a whole.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 37, leave out from 'measurement' to end of line 39.

No. 3, in page 3, line 7, at end insert—
'(3A) An order under subsection (3) above shall not remove from Schedule 1A—

(a) in Part I the mile, foot or inch, or
(b) in Part IV the gallon or pint,
but this subsection is without prejudice to the power under paragraph (c) of the said subsection (3) to add vary or remove any restriction on the cases or circumstances in which, or the conditions subject to which, a unit of measurement, measure or weight may be used for trade, or possessed for use for trade'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 9, leave out 'transitional or other supplemental or incidental' and insert
'consequential, incidental or supplementary'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 11, in Clause 8, page 9, line 41, leave out 'incidental or supplemental' and insert
'consequential, incidental or supplementary'.

Mr. Page: The amendment is put forward merely to achieve consistency in drafting and to avoid doubt about whether there is any substantial difference between three provisions in the Bill, all of which appear to have exactly the same purpose but each of which is differently worded. I have chosen the wording from section 9B(3)(d) of the 1963 Act—which is Government drafting—as the most happy form of words.
By Amendment No. 11 I have tried to bring the other two wordings into line, so that we have consistent drafting throughout, with nobody asking whether there is any substance in the difference in the wording in three provisions which seem to have the same purpose.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: 'The effect of the Amendment No. 4 would be to omit the word "transitional". When orders are made they will certainly have to have transitional provisions. One of the transitional provisions which they ought to have relates to contracts, which the House discussed for about half an hour quite recently. If the word "transitional" were missed out, it could well be that that kind of provision would have to be omitted.
With regard to Amendment No. 11, I understand that it does not matter a tinker's cuss whether we put in "supplemental" or "supplementary". As it makes no difference at all, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Page I cannot understand why the example that the Minister has given is not consequential and why we have to have the word "transitional". Surely it is entirely consequential. To have these three provisions each differently worded, but each intending exactly the same thing, is shockingly bad drafting. I do not think that it is bad drafting on the part of Parliamentary draftsmen. Probably three draftsmen took the separate clauses and did not get together on them. It is the Minister's job to get them together and to have consistent wording in the Bill.

Although I would not wish to divide the House on this—because I do not think it will have tremendous repercussions—it is annoying to have a Bill worded in such a way that people may well ask what is the difference between these differently worded clauses or why they are differently worded. It causes quite unnecessary doubt. I should have thought that the Minister could have put it right between Committee stage and Report. However, having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 3, leave out lines 11 to 13.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 5, after first 'the', insert 'classes of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 6, in line 8, leave out 'persons' and insert 'classes'.

Mr. Page: We discussed this matter in Committee, when I pointed out that orders under Section 9B of the 1963 Act could, by reason of paragraph (c) at the top of page 4, prescribe the individuals to whom those orders should apply. It is not only a matter of cases and circumstances or the classes of persons. By the use of the words "the persons", this

provision could apply to any individual person.
I pointed out in Committee—I shall not repeat the whole argument here—that when we are legislating by a Bill which will become an Act we should make certain that, if we deal with any individual person apart from the general public, such a person or persons should be given an opportunity of petitioning the House against the Bill. It has to be a Private Bill or it has to be a Hybrid Bill which will allow petitions. When the Secretary of State makes orders, as he is given power to do under the new Section 9B, there is no such procedure. Orders under Section 9B will not even be subject to the affirmative procedure. They will merely be subject to the negative procedure, and it will be pure luck if they ever get debated in the House at all. If they are really to affect individual persons, it is quite wrong to legislate in that form.
I thought that the Minister made it clear in Committee that he did not intend to make orders affecting individuals and that he intended orders to be against a class of individuals. He said:
'Persons' could refer to retailers dealing with a particular class of commodity. If there were to be a changeover in respect of, say, the sale of confectionery, it might be necessary to apply the regulations only to those who sell confectionery. That is why the word 'persons' was chosen.
If there is a changeover from imperial to metric which proceeds in chronological stages—which applies first to manufacturers, secondly to wholesalers, and thirdly to retailers—it may be necessary to specify that the persons affected by requirements of regulations under Section 9B should be, in the first instance, the manufacturers, in the second instance the wholesalers and in the third instance the retailers.
The word 'persons' enables us to take a class of persons to whom the regulation would apply."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28th October 1976; c. 60–1.]
I invite the attention of the Minister to that last sentence. If that is his intention, let him restrict the provision to that. As it stands, it could go far beyond it in picking out individuals for some purpose—the use of these regulations merely for classes. My amendment would restrict the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations to naming a class of persons by reference to what they do—manufacturers, retailers or wholesalers—or any of the goods with which


they were dealing and the circumstances in which they were dealing with them.
Although I have intentionally in this amendment sought to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State, if the amendment is accepted I do not think that those powers would be restricted any more than the Secretary of State and the Minister intend they should be restricted in practice.

Mr. John Fraser: I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I have not the slightest intention of making capricious use of the powers conferred on the Government or of going round victimising individuals by making them display conversion charts or obey dual marking regulations.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) caught me with my own words when I described the practice which would be normal in making orders in respect of a class of persons. The only reason why the word "class" has not been inserted in this provision is that it raises a problem in that the insertion of a reference to "class" would be too limited in its effect. It might be desired to require the display of conversion charts and, in a case where the number of persons concerned would be too limited to form a class—for instance, where a single nationalised industry was concerned—the amendment would prevent the use of the powers.
That is the only reason why we did not put in a phrase like "class of persons" and have used the single noun "persons". There is no hidden intention to make capricious use of these powers against individuals. Indeed, if such a capricious exercise of the powers were undertaken, it would be an unexpected use of the powers, it would probably be ultra vires, and certainly it would be subject to the hybrid procedure in the other place.

Mr. Graham Page: I accept the Minister's assurance that he has no intention of using these powers capriciously, but that is no answer for putting them in this form in the Bill. The one case which the hon. Gentleman said would be restricted if the word "class" were inserted is if lie wished to make an order affecting merely one nationalised

industry. Surely that would come within a class, although it might be one nationalised concern. It is covering wide circumstances and a wide class of people. But to refuse to put the word "class" into this provision merely because he might wish to apply these orders to a nationalised industry is not a good answer to the amendment.
If the Bill stands as it is, it gives the opportunity for an order to be made against perhaps one firm or one manufacturer. One nationalised industry can stand up against it. But it may act very unfairly upon one manufacturer. He will be faced with an order which is subject only to the negative procedure, which is subject to some hon. Member spotting it in time and putting down a Prayer, which would be subject to time being found by the Government for it. Obviously, the Minister cannot envisage something like that happening. But there may he one individual who will be affected or who may be overstepping the line in some way. It can happen, and while the power remains in the Bill it can always be used for that purpose.
I think that it is reasonable to ask for the power to be restricted to an order against a class of persons, and I ask the Minister to think again about this.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 39, at end insert
'and for the word "twenty" there is substituted the word "fifty"'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 8, 18, 19, 15 and 20.

Mr. Page: The Minister accepted the principle of this amendment in Committee, and on that basis he asked me to withdraw it. I am grateful to him for putting his own amendments on the Notice Paper. I move my amendment formally, and invite the hon. Gentleman to address the House on his own amendments.

Mr. John Fraser: My amendments do what I promised they would. They meet the convenience, the principle and the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that they bring intense satisfaction to him.

Mr. Page: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 4, line 39, at end insert—
'(c) in the said section 52(1) for the words '£20' there are substituted the words '£50', and the amendment of that subsection in Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (which is superseded by this paragraph) shall cease to have effect'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 7

FEES FOR PERFORMANCE OF COMMUNITY BLIGATIONS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 22, leave out 'certificates or other documents' and insert 'or certificates'.
This, again, is a probing amendment. Usually one describes an amendment as "probing" in Committee. Unfortunately, I did not table this one in Committee. However, I probed the matter on the Question, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill". The probing brought out nothing, so I decided to table this amendment on Report.
The amendment asks the Minister what he means by saying that inspectors can charge
for services or facilities provided by them, or for authorisations, certificates or other documents issued by them".
That might mean a letter, a note or any other little communication.
I hope that the Minister will explain this to enable me to withdraw the amendment, but he must put on record what he means by "or other documents".

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: The Community obligations referred to arise from various EEC directives on the harmonisation of laws so that technical barriers to trade can be removed. These directives already go far wider than what we understand as the weighing or measuring equipment with which the 1963 Act deals, and we need to be ready to cope with new directives as they are adopted. For example, there are already directives on the calibration of ships' tanks, on instruments for measuring the volume and weight of grain and on devices to be incorporated in petrol pumps and similar equipment. All these types of equip-

ment, and the more well-known examples of weights and length measures, need to go through the process of testing to qualify for various marks or documentation in one form or another which act as "passports" into the other EEC member States. Not to be able to prescribe the fees may hurt this country where it can least afford it—in its potential to export—since the local authority inspector will not do the work unless he can charge a fee.
An example of the sort of documentation which can arise in these directives is in the one on calibration of ships' tanks. In the directive there is a series of annexes detailing the papers to be prepared—not just a certificate, but various supporting diagrams and tables concerned with the layout and features of the cargo or fuel tanks. It is this sort of requirement which needs to be covered by the regulations under Clause 6 so that the United Kingdom is not in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis its EEC competitors.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 8

CORRESPONDING AMENDMENTS OF LAW OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 8, line 9, at end insert'—
(a)'.

No. 19, in page 8, line 11, at end insert
',and
(b) for the words "twenty pounds" there are substituted the words "fifty pounds", and the amendment of that subsection in Part I of the Schedule to the Increase of Fines Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (which is superseded by this paragraph) shall cease to have effect'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 10

ORDERS FOR ALLEVIATION OF FOOD OR OTHER SHORTAGES

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 10, line 7 after 'amending', insert 'or suspending'.
I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, because he let us into the secret in Committee that on his brief he


originally had the word "accept". However, someone had scratched it out and put "think again". The Minister said he thought he had better think again.
I explained to the Committee in the course of moving this amendment in Committee that the Statutory Instrument before the House relating to the licensing of bulls referred to suspending the parent statute under which every bull had to be licensed. After explaining that with great care to the Committee, I said that the Minister might think that I was talking a lot of—then I corrected myself and said "A lot of that animal". Yet Hansard, in its magnificent way of interpreting what I said, recorded me as saying that the Minister might think I was talking a lot of "fandanelo". It may have exactly the same meaning as intended, but it was not what I said. This amendment is not a lot of fan-dangle.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the bull he had in mind was to be licensed by the pound or the foot?

Mr. Page: I cannot tell my hon. Friend that. I would if I could. I said in Committee that I knew the Minister was on the horns of a dilemma and that I hoped he would look at the right end of the bull.
In making the orders under this clause, however, the Secretary of State may well wish to suspend the Act of Parliament, but giving him power to amend or modify it does not give him the power to suspend it. We have the precedent in the Statutory Instrument about bulls, so let us follow that precedent and give the Secretary of State power to suspend the statute.

Mr. John Fraser: I must advise the House that as the clause is drafted it is wide and adequate enough to permit

Permitted imperial quantities in Schedule 4 to the Act of 1963


1. The following provisions in Schedule 4 to the Act of 1963 so far as they permit the use of quantities expressed in the imperial system—


paragraph 3 of Part IV (bread),


paragraph 3(a) of Part V (milk),


paragraphs 2 and 3(a) of Part VI (intoxicating liquor),


paragraph 2(b) of Part VII (potatoes),


paragraph 3(a) of Part VIII (miscellaneous),


paragraph 3(a) of Part IX (miscellaneous).


In this paragraph references to provisions of Schedule 4 to the 1963 Act are to those provisions as amended by any order made under section 21 of the Act of 1963 before the passing of this Act.

a suspension if necessary. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Page: It may be unnecessary, but I am tired of that word. If it makes the Bill clearer and if it follows a precedent already before the House, the addition of two words can do no harm. Personally I think it is necessary, hut even if it is not the two words make the Bill clearer.
I would hate the Secretary of State to say that he had to bring in an amending Bill in the future because the parent Act did not allow him to suspend it. We might be frustrating the powers of the Secretary of State by not adding these two words. As we are all getting so nice and friendly and pally, I think that the Minister should give way and let me have my two words.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 13

SHORT TITLE, ETC.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, in page 11, line 17, leave out from "sections" to "3" and insert:
(pre-packed or other goods), 6 and 7 and Schedules (pre-packed and other goods)".
I have given the Opposition notice of this and I mentioned it during the first debate. It is purely a consequential amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I express the opinion that this is quite unnecessary. It the Minister wants these words in the Bill just to please himself, he should let me have mine in as well.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — New Schedule

PRE-PACKED AND OTHER GOODS

Permitted imperial quantities in Orders made under section 21 of the Act of 1963


2. The following Orders so far as they specify quantities in the imperial system—


The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Pasta) Order 1973
S.I. 1973/1967


The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Salt) Order 1973
S.I. 1973/1968


The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Sugar) Order 1974
S.I. 1974/1166


The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Cereal Breakfast Foods and Oat Products) Order 1975
S.I. 1975/1177


The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Flour and Flour Products) Order 1975
S.I. 1975/1178


The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dried Vegetables) Order 1975
S.I. 1975/1179


The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Biscuits and Shortbread) Order 1976
S.I. 1976/111


The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Edible Fats) Order 1976
S.I. 1976/430


The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dried Fruits) Order 1976
S.I. 1976/431


The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Tea) Order 1976
S.I. 1976/1294


The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Bread) Order 1976'.—[Mr. John Fraser]
S.I. 1976/1297

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 23, line 38, at end insert:


'1967 c. 80.
Criminal Justice Act 1967.
In Schedule 3 the amendment of the 1963 Act'.


No. 20, in page 23, line 38, at end insert:


1967 c. 29 (N.I.).
Increase of Fines Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.
In the Schedule the amendment of the 1967 Act'.




—[Mr John Fraser.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, signified.]

6.38 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the Minister moving the Third Reading formally?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I am, but with the leave of the House perhaps I may reply to the debate.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I thought that the Minister was trying to move the Third Reading furtively and without saying anything, but I retract that suggestion since we have an assurance that he will reply to the debate.
We have a Bill before us on Third Reading which is very different from the Bill which the House considered on Second

Reading on 18th October. It would be more appropriate now if the Short Title of the Bill were "Metrication Muzzled". The Bill was amended twice in Committee and subsequently in a manner which goes a long way to meeting the spirit of the amendments that were moved in Committee.
It is fair to say that it is a greatly improved Bill, and we may take justifiable pride in the fact that our efforts on each of the major points have met with either a total or considerable concession on the part of the Government. Important measurements have been preserved. The statutory metrication of basic foodstuffs, particularly important to poorer families, is to be delayed—not as long as we should have liked, but on a far wider range of items. Therefore, I think that the Minister has been fairly generous on this point.
We have also had acceptance from the Minister of the spirit of the amendment


moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) with regard to weighed-out goods, so that small shopkeepers and consumers alike will be spared that change for some considerable time. At the same time, a number of the points raised in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading have been met as a result of the amendments that the Government have agreed to and the concessions which have been made.
Here, however, I should like to refute—I am sure that the Minister would want to do this as well—the imputation made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that there was some sort of collusion between the Government Front Bench and ourselves. I thought at one point that I could hear violins playing when the hon. Member for Walton was speaking. For one moment, I thought that he was actually going to support the Government. However, I am not quite sure whether in the end he had got, as the Minister said, quite as careless as that.
I should like to make it clear to all interested parties, both inside and outside the House—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—that, by the amendments and the concessions, the delays and exemptions that we have obtained have in no way added to the uncertainty of business and industry. Far from it. They have afforded a greater degree of certainty in some cases, and particularly in one case, because an assurance is no longer so much an assurance but is actually written into the Bill.
The Minister of State has wisely adopted a strategy of appeasement—wisely because if he were to do otherwise he would not only be flying in the face of amendments carried in Committee but flying in the face of public opinion. I think it is fair to say that the Minister has made such concessions as he has made gracefully, and for that we are extremely grateful.
Having said that, I must say that we do not like the Bill. Speaking for myself —I make no bones about it—I do not like metrication at all. However, our main objection to the Bill is that it involves the statutory imposition of metrication. As I have said many times, I do not think that this is necessary or desirable. If people want metrication, let

them have it. If they do not want it, do not ram it down their throats. If business and industry want to go metric, they can do so, following consultations with the Government, by voluntary agreement. As I said in Committee, trade and industry will always have to take into account, in doing so, the wishes of their customers in a free enterprise society. That is the important reason, among others, why we do not think that statutory metrication is necessary.
As I have also said many times, in many cases those who want compulsion in business and industry want it because they fear that metrication will be unpopular and they would like to be able to say to their customers "The Government forced us to go metric." I fear that with this Bill the Government are falling into that trap.
We object to the principle for which the Bill stands. We still do not believe—although the concessions that we have won will mitigate against this—that it will be possible completely to avoid confusion and higher costs to consumers. We call upon the Government to proceed with the utmost caution. Our Standing Committee debates have shown them to be still very largely unprepared on a number of important points. We ask them not to act until the fullest preparations are completed or before the businesses and industries concerned are absolutely ready, and, above all, before consumers can be adequately safeguarded.
For our part, we shall want to scrutinise very closely any orders made under the Bill and to reserve the right to oppose them whatever the circumstances may be if we consider it necessary to do so. Fortunately, as the first order cannot be laid before April 1978, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames has said, the problem is largely academic, because by that time we are likely to be the Government of the day and we shall be in control of the situation.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Neubert: It is still a relatively rare parliamentary phenomenon that only a fortnight after we have had the Second Reading of a Bill we have reached its Third Reading. When we recall what progress has been made in between, it is even more remarkable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim)


said, it has been a great triumph for common sense and in the interests of the shopper as well as, one would think, the shopkeeper.
Unfortunately, one has to put these minor triumphs in their perspective. Last week was the week in which we managed to save the mile, the foot, the inch, and the pint—but failed to save the pound. A drop of 6 or 7 cents in the value of our currency is a much more significant factor than any that we have been discussing in relation to the Bill in its implications for the economy and the people of Britain. It will have the effect of pushing up prices, very fast and high. That is why we have been concerned, throughout the passage of the Bill, to urge caution and natural evolution on the Government. We are naturally delighted that the cogency of our arguments has achieved such effect and that the Minister has been prepared to recognise the points put.
The case for the Bill always was an overstated argument. It has been overstated in many ways. It has been overstated in terms of the simplicity of the system. It will be a continuing irony that many of the new weights which are being introduced, such as 125 grammes and 250 grammes, represent vulgar fractions of one-eighth or one-quarter, which have little relation to a simple decimal system of measurement in units of 10.
It has also been overstated that this combining of two systems of measurement at the same time will cause great confusion and bewilderment among the public. Here particularly has been taken in aid the many hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren who have been educated in the metric system. I can only speak as I find. My son is a modern mathematician and is as metricated as anyone, yet he finds no difficulty at all in the pleasure of recording his height as 5 ft. ½ in, no difficulty in identifying and locating a pint of milk in the refrigerator, and no difficulty in bowling a good length on a cricket pitch of 22 yards. Just as some children become bilingual as they grow up without even knowing it, just as Molière's Bourgeois Gentilhomme was speaking prose all his life without realising it, so people cope with two systems of measurement and will continue to

do so. There is no reason at all for the Minister to rush headlong into metricating our way of life far beyond the wishes of public opinion.
I should like to draw attention to what is a mini minor triumph for many people in outlying areas of Scotland. In his mood of generosity the Minister was able to accommodate an amendment that was moved in my name to allow coal to be sold by volume rather than by weight. This demonstrates the independence of the people of the outlying islands of Scotland and their common sense. Here we have a situation in which, if the Minister were to press his principles to the limit, it would make coal more expensive for those people. It might also make coal unavailable to them.
The present rather old-fashioned system—charming, none the less—is very suitable to their needs. There are steamers puffing to the islands and the less accessible parts of the Scottish mainland with coal on board, which they then offload. There is no cheap means of packing it in prescribed weights on loading and there is no weighing machinery available on unloading for the weight to be calculated, so the people in the islands are very happy to buy coal by volume because they depend upon these supplies. Therefore, on behalf of the people of Scotland, I am happy that the Minister has accepted our amendment.
I should like to express my personal pleasure at this because in preparation for moving the amendment I spent three weeks in Scotland during the recess, visiting such places as Tobermory, Craignure, Iona and the outer islands of the Inner Hebrides, such as Coll and Tiree. I also absorbed most of the late lamented Sir Compton Mackenzie's book "Whisky Galore". When one has the atmosphere of Scotland one understands that these practical matters are paramount and that we should not, from our ivory fastness here at Westminster, seek to undermine another way of life: and, as we so often discover in our discussions of consumer affairs, progress in consumer protection very often means a higher price. The people of Scotland and the outlying islands do not wish to pay higher prices and we have no wish to make them pay higher prices faster than they will have to anyway because of inflation. I am


delighted that in two short weeks—at almost the speed of sound—so much common sense has been incorporated into the Government's proposals.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. George Thompson: I congratulate the Minister on remaining urbane throughout the Committee stage, even when he was defeated, and I put on record my appreciation of his conciliatory attitude to the problems of the remote areas of Scotland—which have a distinctive way of selling solid fuel—and over amendments passed in Committee. The Minister is an example to his colleagues, and I hope that they will follow that example.
I cannot pretend that I have ever believed in metrication or decimalisation. I do not see why the French Revolution should still be dictating to us 200 years later.
Charlemagne's librae, solidi and denari were good enough for him and would be good enough for me. They provided two barriers before reaching the pound, whereas the present system provides only one. I do not know whose foot provided the measurement for a foot, but it is good enough for me, and I am pleased that it has been decided that it will be good enough for us for a long time. These measures were also good enough for the people who placed certain standard measures in the wall of the staircase leading from the Principal Floor of this building to the Committee Floor. I am pleased that the statute of Lord Palmerston will not have to be removed and disposed of in the River Thames, or wherever the inconoclasts or Red Guard would like to throw it.
I cannot give my blessing to the Bill, though I dare say that some of my hon. Friends—the lovers of new things—will bless it. The ordinary consumer will bless it all right! Hon. Members will be able to receive those blessings as they go about their constituency business.
Like the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), I am puzzled to know why decimalisation and metrication were not wedded. If we are to have goods packaged in 125-gramme containers, we are thinking in halves, quarters, eighths, and so on. This seems to be a clear sign that the human mind works in vulgar

fractions, even though we have 10 fingers and 10 toes. I sometimes think that the only reason that the presence and absence of SNP Members is reported in the Press with such assiduity is that it is possible to count to 10 without taking off one's shoes.
It would have been better if we had allowed the imperial system to wither away, if the people of this country so wished. Some years ago I was arguing with a girl in Brittany that she ought to speak her native language more often. She said that her people could not use it for official purposes because they did not use the metric system for counting in their language. Even 200 years after the French Revolution, the parts of France with their own language have not adopted the metric system.
We should not force the well-tried imperial measures down the road to extinction as we are, at least in part, by this Bill.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Joan Evans: I am pleased that the House has reached the Third Reading of the Bill and that the Government will be given the enabling powers to bring in metrication in an orderly way.
I said on Second Reading that I thought that the Opposition were taking an opportunist line on metrication. Having listened to them since, to me they seem to have a Jekyll and Hyde approach—a split personality—on the subject. It is difficult to know whether it is Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde speaking.
I was unable to be here for the Report stage, because I was meeting a deputation, but I understand that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) chastised me for quoting the CBI. I did not quote only the CBI; I quoted also the views of consumer organisations, the Retail Consortium, the TUC and most of the organisations that have recognised that there should be an orderly transition to metrication in this country. I challenged the hon. Lady to mention one organisation on whose behalf she was speaking.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: She spoke on behalf of the British people.

Mr. Evans: It is true that when we introduce changes there is sometimes a


reaction from people who are unwilling to see such changes. However, the argument now is how to bring in metrication. The Conservative Party is committed to the principle. The Treaty of Accession to the EEC says that we should accept a system of metrication. When the Conservatives were in power, they said on a number of occasions that they wished metrication to be introduced.
Some of my hon. Friends held up the Second Reading of the Bill because they were not satisfied that there had been enough consultation with consumer organisations. I praise the Minister for the way in which he has since consulted outside organisations. There has been a great deal of consultation about the reservations of some of these bodies.
It is no use hon. Members talking vaguely about speaking on behalf of British housewives when there are organisations in this country—recognised consumer bodies, the CBI, which represents large sections of industry, the TUC, which represents trades union organisations. and the Retail Consortium, which represents a large sector of retail trade—which have made serious representations to the Government and which hope that the enabling powers in the Bill will be approved by the House. We should take careful note of these representations.
Of course, we are sometimes conservative, with a small "c". We wish to carry on with the old imperial system rather than change to metrication, but we must recognise that children are being taught metrication at school and are told that although their school books include problems involving imperial units they should not attempt these sums. They are not learning the imperial system.
We shall get into grave difficulties if we teach our children metrication and they then go into shops having to purchase goods measured in imperial units.
We have had arguments about the mile and the pint. Some hon. Members have been like Don Quixote—tilting at windmills. The Minister has given assurance after assurance, and the amendment now included in the Bill should satisfy those who were trying to suggest that

there was to be a change in the measurements.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member said that we should not be vague. Does he draw a distinction between compulsory progress towards metrication and voluntary progress towards it? They are completely different, and the hon. Member's failure to draw that distinction totally vitiates his remarks.

Mr. Evans: We had that argument in Committee, and I do not wish to repeat it. Decimalisation was compulsory. We cannot have two systems operating. The metric system is being introduced. If we have large packets with small contents, some being sold under the metric system and others under the imperial system, the consumer will face tremendous difficulties.
We are not suggesting that metrication will come in from an appointed day. The Government are taking enabling powers to bring it in in an orderly fashion. I appeal to the Opposition not to attempt to make political kudos by creating false fears among people that metrication will be brought in within a month. That is not so. The Government are taking enabling powers which will enable them to lay orders before the House to bring in metrication in an orderly fashion. Parents are concerned about their children knowing the metric system. We must go forward. The rest of the world has gone metric. The Opposition may still crave for the old Empire and want to hang on to the imperial system, but things are changing. We cannot afford to get off at this time.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: It is a fair distance in either miles or kilometres from Aberdare to Pudsey, but in many instances I must agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).
I have not balked the principle of metrication, but I take issue with the hon. Gentleman that we have ill served the consumer by this process. We have gone a fair way to restore some sense of public credibility in the metrication process. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the public are ill favoured towards it. I know that the Minister is deeply conscious of this fact.
The discussions that we have had have gone over the ground time and again.
The Bill will probably achieve its Third Reading tonight. The Minister then has the consultation period within which to try to proceed industry by industry or sector by sector. I encourage him to go through this process with reasonable speed so that there can be an orderly programme sector by sector. The hon. Gentleman will not find many industries wanting in providing the time or the opportunity to agree on the correct and most orderly way to make the transition. The transition will involve an enormous lead time in terms of machinery, information and communication. A substantial lead time is equally involved in seeing that the precise ranges of metric weights, as translated into their new form, meet the most obvious consumer needs. I am fearful that a whole range of different prepacks could be offered at different metric equivalents rather than the simple imperial measures of 4 oz., 8 oz. and 1 lb. units.
I am sure that the Minister recognises the importance of having in each industry or sector dates by which the change can be achieved. The amendments relating to April 1978 and 1980 provide the ground work to enable this to be done. I believe that it is necessary for him to work on that basis.
I hope that the Minister will stiffen the resolve of the Metrication Board to realise that the problem only now begins—namely, that it must have the resources with which to guide the public at the time of conversion irrespective of what it has already spent.
Finally, the Minister has already accepted the need for consultation with the various trades. On weigh up, I ask the Minister to consult the confectionery industry before deciding whether to omit it from the list of industries whose products are to be exempted.
The inevitability of metrication should be carefully cultivated industry by industry to ensure that there is less muddle, more order and more preparation. That is the best possible ground work to safeguard the consumer.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Newens: As I said on Second Reading, I do not regard this Bill as a desirable and necessary measure. I recognise that metrication has gone a certain way and had gone that way prior to this measure being thought about, but

I see no reason for endeavouring to force the pace. I think that we have been quite mistaken in taking the steps we have taken to give the Government power to cut off the use of imperial measures. Therefore, I wish that this Bill had not come before the House.
I recognise, as the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) pointed out, that many august and important organisations support metrication and argue in favour of the Bill. I pay full tribute to the erudition of all the experts, but at the same time I maintain with complete confidence that the majority of ordinary people accustomed to the use of imperial measures would not, if they could be properly consulted, regard these organisations as speaking for them. In my opinion, ordinary people will find the change to metrication extremely confusing and difficult to cope with. I am sure that, over the years, there will be many complaints about the effects of this measure.
Many people will never grasp the new system of weights and measures. They will be left in a state of continual confusion. I think that it would be much better to allow the imperial system to wither away in its own time.
The Opposition have failed to oppose this measure in principle, as was perfectly clear from their amendment on Second Reading. I am opposed in principle to what the Bill seeks to do. We should not have legislated for this change at all. None the less, I recognise that the Minister has taken no end of pains to make this measure less pernicious than it might otherwise have been. I know from the consultations which many of us have had with him, apart from discussion on the Floor of the House, that he has been most concerned to mitigate the worst effects of this measure. At the same time, I still feel extremely unhappy about what we are proposing to do. Therefore, I appeal, even now, for some caution to be exercised by the Government when fixing the cut-off dates. I believe that, even with the lengthening of the period now proposed, the situation is not satisfactory, and that whoever happens to be in charge of these affairs at the time ought to proceed with extreme caution.
I certainly do not welcome the Bill. I regard it as a mistake. In these circumstances, if there were to be a Division, I certainly could not support the Bill.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) put my views so accurately that I need not repeat them. My hon. Friend wants this measure brought in in an orderly manner and, it is fair to say, with deliberate haste. I believe that is a correct description of his views. It certainly is of mine.
I found myself for the first time in this House abstaining on Second Reading of a Bill. I abstained consciously, because it confronted me with a conflict of right with right. I believe that this Bill is right in principle and that the Government have shown courage in bringing it in. Indeed, I believe that any Government, in present circumstances, would have brought in a Bill of this kind.
I believe that there was right, and still is, on the side of the Bill. It is a right which, in my view, arises from the needs of British industry. If all of us wish to be credible in giving support to British industry then I believe we must support this principle.
Secondly, I believe it was right on much broader European grounds. We committed ourselves under the Treaty of Accession and I believe that it is right that we should honour that commitment.
Thirdly, I believe it is right to give to our people, however unpalatable a matter might be, a sense of definitiveness so that the necessary preparations can be made by our industry and by the public.
Although I found that the principle of this Bill was right on Second Reading, I had severe reservations about some aspects of it. I think the Government and their advisers were misguided in having brought into the Bill the gallon, pint, mile, foot and the inch. This was one of those cases where the desire for tidiness and for a systematic covering of everything—which unfortunately underlines so much of our legislation—went beyond common sense.
I can remember several times, in the various Departments of Government in which I served, when the desire of civil

servants to be logical and comprehensive, estimable qualities in their own right, conflicted completely with the common sense of the British people. I believe that it is the role of politicians, and particularly of this House, to weigh the logic, reason and the comprehensiveness of official advice on the one hand and at the other end to weigh the needs and desires of the British public. I believe that the Bill ends up a better Bill because it has merged the two rights together.
However, I believe that there was a moment when it became a conflict of wrong with wrong. There was a wrong on the Government's side in bringing in the gallon, mile, inch and the rest, which they did not need to, and there was a wrong on the Opposition Benches whenever it appeared as though we were going to resist the whole process—irrespective of the effect on British industry—simply because we were not prepared to swallow the removal of the gallon, the mile and the inch.
Fortunately, as so often happens in Committee on Bills such as this, and with a reasonable Minister and someone like my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), who has managed consideration of this Bill with grace and effectiveness, the Committee was able to change a conflict of wrong with wrong into a negotiated settlement so that we now have a Bill which best meets the needs of industry and the public.
I would make three points to which, 1 hope, the Minister will reply. The Bill, as its Short Title indicates, is not just about metrication. I quote the relevant phrase, which states:
to make provision for the alleviation of shortages of food and other goods.
I doubt if these matters, which are technical, and which merely revise previous statutes, commanded very much attention either in Committee or in the public. I draw attention to the short title and to Clauses 10 and 11 because, in my view, this country may be facing shortages before we know it. I believe that we shall be facing shortages of food because we are not treating our agricultural industry properly. I believe that we shall be facing shortages because we are simply not able, on foreign exchange, to afford to import the food we shall need. Therefore, it may well be that, while not in the least intending to raise anxieties of


that kind, the Government, because there was a tidying-up exercise to be done, have equipped themselves with powers to deal with a problem not clearly visualised as yet but which could arise in this country before very long. It is right to put on record that this Bill equips the Government with powers to deal with shortages of food and of other goods which could arise in our country.
The second specific point that I would put to the Minister concerns one related industry—the weighing machines and scale makers. I have no interest to declare in this industry whatsoever, but I have read its literature and I have been approached by it in my constituency. I direct my remarks to the Minister, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who may well find herself in office when it comes to putting the Bill into effect. I take it that the date of 21st April 1978, in respect of prepacked goods, means that the Minister will do nothing before that date. I hope very much that he will get cracking soon after that date. It is important that the industry and the trade should know precisely that this is the target date at which they ought to be aiming.
The date of 1st January 1980 reflects some effective negotiations by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and I congratulate her upon that. I know it is a date which is somewhat earlier than she herself would have wished. I hope that the Minister will regard that date before which he cannot act as being a specific date at which point he would propose to act. Whether that is so or not I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, that he have in his mind a date so that there can be certitude in the industry.
What I am essentially saying is that it the weighing machine industry and the scale makers are to tool up, equip themselves and make themselves ready to build the new metric scales and new metric weighing machines, they must have a reasonable certainty that at some point in future the switch is to be made. Otherwise we shall find ourselves in a position where they have not tooled up or made preparations and the date will come out and most of the new metric scales will have to be imported from the long-run productions of Germany and France.
That cannot be in the interests of this country or our balance of payments. I hope that the Minister will at least give an assurance that he has it in mind that there shall be "M" days so that the industry and trade will be able to work to them. I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of what I am saying.
I recognise the repugnance of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for metrication, and I feel much of it myself, but I hope she will not commit herself, or the next Conservative Government, to refusing to bring in the necessary orders so that there can be certainty in this matter. I realise that she preferred the whole matter to happen voluntarily and gradually as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) does. It would have been much better if it had been done that way, but I have grave doubts whether it would have happened in an orderly way if it had been left to the untidy voluntary procedures which are the only alternative. I am reminded of a certain African leader whom I once went to and who said that he was going to stop cars driving on the left and change to the right. There were so many casualties that he said it should be done gradually.
I realise that the change from left to right is not exactly the same thing as a change from one kind of measure to another, but there needs to be clarity and certitude in the minds of the trade and manufacturers and I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester will not commit the next Conservative Government in such a fashion that they will not be able to carry this out.
I hope that the Minister will say a word about the Metrication Board. It appeared from the original Bill—I think I am correct—that it has cost £900,000 in one year. Will the Minister say how the Board has spent that amount of money and how much it will spend in the years to come? We should be able to handle these matters with more prudence and economy.
Overall, the Bill has been massively improved. As one who abstained on Second Reading, I shall support the Third Reading, thanks largely to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I should like to answer the three questions raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). He was being far too dramatic in forecasting shortages. In the Second Reading debate I gave the example of the temporary shortage of sugar which occurred a couple of years ago and said that it was necessary to have a relaxation in case a similar occurrence made it necessary to import packs not strictly within our weights and measures legislation. It would be to attach too much importance to Clause 10 to suggest that it was necessary because we expected shortages in future.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to get cracking with weighing machines. As a Minister, I find that half the people ask me to get cracking and half ask me to slow up. I try to steer a course somewhere between the two. I cannot dictate the programme. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said that I had not prepared a timetable. I am not a metrication dictator and neither are the Government, certainly not in the interests of one group. When the Bill is enacted the Government have to consult all interests involved. After these consultations, bearing in mind the balance of payments question involved with weighing scales, the Government will lay down a timetable that will be in the best interests of consumers and the country as a whole and will bring certainty and reassurance.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked me about the Metrication Board. I do not propose to start a lengthy debate on that subject. I pay tribute to the Board for having gone a long way on a voluntary basis. Much of its work is below the surface and perhaps not fully appreciated by the average consumer. The sooner we complete the metrication process the sooner we shall wind up the Board and thereby save public money.
I am grateful for all the congratulatory remarks that have been made. Had

there been more congratulations, my reputation would have been totally in ruins. I should be less than fair if I did not pay tribute to the constructive spirit with which hon. Members on both sides of the House of all parties have approached the Bill during its passage through the House and in Committee. There were some almost euphoric moments towards the end of our debate. It seemed likely that the country as a whole would be congratulated on taking about 15 years to achieve a fairly simple change. I feel that it is perhaps a weakness in our national character—not a matter for congratulation—to take so long to adjust to change.

On reflection, I feel that it is a pity that Governments of both complexions did not put the principle of metrication to the House of Commons earlier and did not have the courage to seek a legal framework when this process was started. That is a criticism of previous Labour and Conservative Administrations.

In passing the Bill the House will demonstrate that it accepts the principle of change and will provide the legal machinery to bring about that change. Of course, there have been concessions, which reflect my personal predelictions. The Bill has brought reassurance and certainty. It does not sweep away the imperial system. It does not conclude the process begun by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in 1965. It merely provides a framework for moving towards that goal. The Government and I are not metrication fanatics. We have not been seduced by the European Community. We believe, on reflection—my conviction has been strengthened as I have watched its passage —that the Bill and the framework it provides are, at the end of the day, in the best interests of industry, the consumers and the country.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 35.

Division No. 364.]
AYES
[7.25 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cartwright, John


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Clemitson, Ivor


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael


Barrett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman
Cohen, Stanley


Bean, R. E.
Canavan, Dennis
Coleman, Donald


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B.
Concannon, J. D.


Boardman, H.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Corbett, Robin




Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Judd, Frank
Reid, George


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kelley, Richard
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tarn
Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ryman, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Selby, Harry


Drayson, Burnaby
McCartney, Hugh
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Shore, Rt Hon Peiler


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deplford)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Stiverman, Julius


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Small, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara. Kevin
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Magee, Bryan
Snape, Peter


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon
Spearing, Nigel


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stallard, A. W.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John
Stott, Roger


Freud, Clement
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertiltery)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Molloy, William
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hardy, Peter
Moonman, Eric
Ward, Michael


Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Geraint
Watt, Hamish


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Hatton, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Howell, Rl Hon Denis (B'ham,Sm H)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Hughes, Rt Hon c. (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hunter, Adam
Ovenden, John
Woodall, Alec


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pavitt, Laurie
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Penhaligon, David



John, Brynmor
Perry, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Prescott, John
Mr. Ted Graham and


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. All Bales.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)






NOES


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Kerr, Russell
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Beith, A. J.
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Body, Richard
Lawson, Nigel
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Budgen, Nick
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Carson, John
McCusker, H.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Madden, Max
Thompson, George


Crawford, Douglas
Marten, Neil
Welsh, Andrew


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moate, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Molyneaux, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Paisley, Rev Ian



Heffer, Eric S.
Par doe, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Stanley Newens.

Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWNS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3

PREPARATION AND CONTENTS OF TRANSFER SCHEMES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 23, leave out "has" and insert "have".

7.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may discuss Lords Amendments No. 2, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Mr. Barnett: These are drafting amendments designed to ensure that the Bill is consistent in using the plural form when referring to districts and corporations.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 5, line 5, after "scheme" insert
,in addition to the matters referred to in section (Right of tenants to purchase dwelling houses) of this Act,

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords Amendments No. 4, 25 and 26.

Mr. Barnett: The Opposition have sought to amend the Bill at every stage of its passage throughout both Houses so that it provided for new town tenants to have some kind of power to buy the houses in which they were living when the new town housing stock was passed to the local authority. The Opposition have striven hard and the Bill has returned from another place with a new clause.
It is an odd provision which is so out of keeping with the rest of the Bill as to require an amendment to the Long Title. It is out of keeping with the moderate and considered approach of the

Bill which concerns the responsible management of a considerable slice of the public sector housing stock by public authorities. It is out of keeping with the rights of local authority tenants who will not be affected by it. It is out of keeping with the future responsibilities of the local authorities to which these assets are being transferred, and it is also out of keeping with the rights of new town tenants at large since it will apply only to those who are affected by housing assets transfers.
That the amendment has been repeatedly moved at almost every stage of the Bill demonstrates that the Opposition are preoccupied, if not obsessed, with the sale of council houses. They have taken every opportunity, however marginal or misconceived, to indulge that preoccupation. The Bill has placed the Opposition in a dilemma. They want to push sales, but the Bill is mainly about something else—the future management of new town houses. The Opposition can find no better vehicle for their proposals. Their amendments would produce an arbitrary and peculiar statutory right to purchase for certain tenants in certain places at certain times.
On each occasion that such an amendment has been proposed, we have had to point out a number of difficulties in the drafting. We have never wished to make too much of this, because Oppositions inevitably have difficulty in drafting an amendment free of any defects. Nevertheless, it is a matter of some interest that each time the amendment has been moved it has contained defects.
I believe this to be the result of two factors. First, fundamentally the amendment does not belong in the Bill. Secondly, I believe it extremely difficult to provide in legislation a statutory right for people to purchase the house in which they live, let alone to do so when a transfer of houses from new town corporations to local authorities is taking place. In view of that, rather than concentrate on the amendment I intend to deal once again with the Government's policy on sales of corporation and council houses as a whole, which is the real point at issue.
We on the Government Benches are opposed to the indiscriminate sale of publicly-owned dwellings. Our belief is that sales are not an end in themselves.
Rather, in any considered policy, the selling of council or corporation houses should he the consequence of an overall approach to housing, an approach moreover, which goes beyond the public sector's contribution. The selling of council houses and new town rented dwellings is only one part of the whole picture of the local housing requirements and should be seen as such. Any decision as to whether to sell should be considered in the light of the contribution which it would make to meeting those requirements and the effect it would have on the capacity of the local authority to provide good, attractive housing for those who have to look to their local council for a home.
Indeed, I am particularly worried about the degree to which the amendment would pre-empt the right and duty of the local authorities that will acquire these considerable assets to consider and apply their future housing policy. They will take on a considerable responsibility. Certain local authorities may wish to make certain dispositions in the light of the consideration of the housing needs of their areas. Together with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I would want to rely on the perception of a democratically-elected local authority, chosen to represent the district, to make the right dispositions to meet the housing problems and needs of its area.
I can see great advantage in the Bill in so far as for the first time in the areas about which we are talking it will be possible for a local authority, once the transfers have taken place, to look at its area comprehensively. In the very nature of things, that has not been easy as long as management has been split between the new town corporation and the district council that has built houses of its own accord.
It follows that where it is clear that in a particular district the public sector stock is more than adequate to deal with pressing housing needs it will be right to sell, provided that the terms are realistic and do not involve a loss to the public purse. The number of such localities will increase as further progress is made in eliminating housing shortages. That is why we have relaxed the ban on sales in new towns. We agreed with the new town development corporations that sales could be resumed in those new towns

where this would be without detriment to those who could not afford to buy a house.
It is our policy within the public sector to ensure that locality by locality, a balance is maintained between the desire for extended owner-occupation and the needs of those for whom owner-occupation is not the right or even a possible form of tenure. We have therefore advised local authorities when contemplating sales to make a careful assessment of their own situation, and in particular of the need for rented accommodation and how the supply to meet it can best be achieved.
That is the kind of responsibility that will rest with the district councils when the transfer schemes have been completed. I am anxious to see them shoulder that responsibility. I do not want to see their ability comprehensively to appreciate the problems minimised as a consequence of the amendments.
7.45 p.m.
The new clause would undoubtedly cut right across this approach. In considering the needs of its district, a process which the presence of the new town will have made all the more complex, the local authority would be hampered by the anomaly that some tenants had, by law, a power to buy their homes, while others, for very good reasons, had not been given the chance to do so.
Therefore, the new clause would distort the options available to a local authority to which new town houses are to be transferred. It could even pre-empt those options and deprive existing tenants of receiving authorities of the chance that the authorities could otherwise give them to buy their homes, because in some places selling on a small scale might be acceptable while massive selling would not be acceptable. Why should the law give some tenants what in practice would be an unfair preference over others?
The Opposition have had a good run for their money. Perhaps I should say "the Tory Opposition", because the new clause and the associated amendments were carried only because of predominantly Tory votes in another place. The Opposition have made their point. This House has consistently and wisely rejected


what their amendments seek to do. I am confident that it will do so again now.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The Minister said that the Opposition were obsessed with the sale of council houses. It seems to me that the Minister and his party are obsessed with enforcing their view against the wishes of those who live in the area concerned.
During the passage of the Bill the Government have said from time to time that they are not opposed to owner-occupation. The new clause, for all its possible defects, gives them an opportunity to show that that is so in practice.
What is wrong with giving those who live in new town houses the right to buy their own homes? The Minister told us today that that right would be out of keeping, because it would not apply to local authority tenants. I should like all local authority tenants to have the right to buy their own homes, but the Bill is limited to new towns, and therefore the amendment provides the statutory right for those in new towns to buy their houses on the transfer of the assets.
The Minister said that the Government had been flexible, but, through Whitehall, he is telling the Runcorn Development Corporation that it may not sell a single house to a tenant even if he wishes to buy. The hon. Gentleman talked about the elected local authority being given the opportunity to make decisions and said that the amendment would take away that opportunity by giving, instead, a statutory right to buy. What the Government are doing, not by legislation but by directive, is to tell the new town development corporation "You may not sell houses, even if you wish to".
I stand firmly by the view that I have expressed many times during the passage of the Bill, that those of my constituents who wish to buy their new town houses should be entitled to do so. I have no reason to believe that the development corporation's view has changed in any way since its chairman, with the chairmen of the other development corporations, pressed on the Government the desirability of their being able to sell new town houses if they wished. I do not see why the Runcorn Development Corporation should not be able to sell

new town houses to tenants who wish to buy.

Mr. Stanley Newens: What is the waiting list in Runcorn for the tenancy of a development corporation house? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if houses were sold to sitting tenants it would lengthen the waiting list, because the houses thus sold would go out of the pool of available housing?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a substantial waiting list for houses in Runcorn New Town because it is an attractive town and there is a demand from people to live there, but it is wrong to say that the effect of the clause would be to lengthen the waiting list. Those who want to own the houses which they now rent have no alternative accommodation. There is no other stock in the area for them to buy. If they have changed their jobs and moved to the area, their only opportunity lies in buying a house in that new town. I believe that people should have the freedom of choice to buy such a house if they wish. I am not saying that they should be forced to buy, but merely that they should have the opportunity to do so. That is also the view of the Runcorn Development Corporation.
Nobody would dispute that there is now a desire for owner occupation, particularly among young people who wish to own their own houses. We must remember that the new towns are largely populated by young people. In a time of inflation young people wish to take advantage of contributing to a capital asset that will help them to fight that inflation.
The Government, in refusing in general terms to permit development corporations to sell new houses, are, for dogmatic reasons, stultifying the desires of those people. It is only Socialist dogma that prevents people who wish to do so having the opportunity to buy these houses. I hope that such an opportunity will shortly be afforded to them.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I have some feelings of trepidation about New Clause A because I see both sides of the argument. I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) that


waiting lists play a large part in the attitude of local authorities towards the selling of their houses. My own local authority, which has a Conservative chairman, has concluded that it should not sell council houses, because the waiting list grows monthly.
However, in respect of the situation in the new towns, I believe that the Opposition's view is more correct than the Government's view. I made inquiries of a number of new town chairmen and found that most of them wished they could sell houses in their towns. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that although there were waiting lists in the Runcorn area, there were not alternative houses available in the private sector for would-be purchasers to occupy. We believe that it would be much better if local authorities gave cash grants to council house tenants to enable them to move into the private sector where houses are available, so that the council properties thus vacated were left for members of the lower income groups to move into. Obviously that makes sense.
I agree with the Minister that these matters should preferably be left with the elected authorities, which is where the decisions should be made. I am sorry to hear that the Government have not yet given the flexibility to new towns to sell. Apparently, if that is correct, Runcorn has been forbidden to sell its houses.

Mr. Guy Barnett: No.

Mr. Ross: No doubt we shall hear more about that later. Is it a fact that the authorities at Milton Keynes and Stevenage can sell their homes? Is it now Government policy that they are entitled to do so, if they wish?

Mr. Guy Barnett: I thought that that position was very clear. The former Minister for Planning and Local Government had a conference with new town chairmen at which agreement was reached whereby new town corporations, whose housing list waiting periods were less than three months, and where there was an obvious desire to sell a number of corporation houses, could put proposals to the Minister to enable them to make sales. I understand that two new town corporations have already taken advantage of that situation. However, it was

suggested that the district council should be consulted before such a decision was put to the Minister. The Government do not operate an inflexible policy against sales by a corporation.

Mr. Ross: We have not yet had a final decision. Schemes have been put forward, but we have not yet heard the outcome. That is the present position.
I believe that the clause brings the matter to a head. I see no objection to sales of new town houses. It seems to me that there should be a discount, that these houses should not be sold below cost, and that there should be restrictions to that end.

Sir Thomas Williams: I understand that the Opposition are suggesting that authorities should induce new town corporations to sell houses if they wish to do so. That is a different proposition from what is contained in the Lords amendment. The amendment seeks to insert New Clause A, providing that a scheme
shall include the statutory right for a tenant of a dwelling house to purchase".
If all the Opposition are seeking is that the corporation, if it so wishes, shall have the choice of selling, it is a wholly different position from that adopted in the Lords amendment. Does the hon. Gentleman dissent from that point of view?

Mr. Ross: No, I do not dissent from it, but up to now the fact is that the Government have not come clean on this subject. They are saying, "Yes, basically where waiting lists are short the new town corporations should be entitled to sell, but they must put up schemes to the Minister". We have not yet heard what has happened in the case of those who have presented schemes.
These provisions bring the matter to a head. I would rather there were no statutory rights, because I believe that the matter should be left to local authorities. I believe that, once the transfer has taken place, it is better for the new authorities to deal with the situation. The Government are dragging their feet, and in this instance I believe that the Opposition have got the balance right.
I am worried that there is no provision in the clause for local authorities to step in and repurchase. Nevertheless, I


believe that the whole matter is something of a red herring. With mortgage rates of 12¼ per cent. and 12½ per cent. people will not be so anxious to buy their houses. I understand that in Slough the local authority is seeking to sell its houses but that the take-up is relatively slow. I do not think that there will be a rush for these homes while money is so dear. The experience in Stevenage some years ago was an unhappy one, because people who had purchased houses at flexible rates found the figure rising to as much as 14 per cent. and eventually returned to the local authority with the plea "Please buy my house back."
The merit of this proposal is that it brings finality to the matter. If the Government will not take action the tenant will have the power to force an authority into selling. In present housing and financial circumstances there has to be a much greater changeover to private occupation and tenant management. There have to be schemes enabling people to take a far greater share in the maintenance of their homes. This will all come out in the Housing Finance Review, which we hope to see in about a month's time. I think that, on balance, the Opposition have it right.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: I had not intended to speak, but, as in previous debates on new towns, some strange things have been said during the course of the exchanges, and I have therefore been prompted to rise. The most curious thing is the suggested amendment from their Lordships. Because they may take leave of their sense there is no reason why we should follow suit. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who began by saying that there might well be a need for discussion of the whole question of council houses being sold to tenants. But has that got a place in this Bill? That is what the issue is about.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is right to refer to the question of flexibility. I am sure that he will agree with me that when we are trying to ensure the passage of a piece of major legislation relating to the transfer of assets from the development corporation to the council—a massive exercise—we should not be hampered by the

political knock-about that we have seen on previous stages. This does not help those who live in new towns.
A number of hon. Members who are present tonight represent new towns. On every occasion that we debate this subject we fail to produce the clarification that it is suggested is required. Nothing is brought to a head. This means that we are letting down our people because of this political knock-about. I have no time for this, irrespective of the side of the Chamber on which I am sitting. New towns are precious to me, as they are to other Members. There are many things that we need to put right in new towns. We must ensure that we get a proper, integrated approach to housing and jobs. We ought to look more seriously at the development of unemployment in new towns. In my new town there is 10 per cent. unemployment, and I am worried about it. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I appear to be less than tolerant of any excursion into the realms of politics.
Basically we need to use our resources and energies to solve these problems. The Minister has rightly said that there is an element of flexibility. If people feel strongly about this they should take it further with the Minister. At the same time, the main element of concern in this Bill must centre round vesting date, when the local councils will take over responsibility for this major area of operation involving staff and the transfer of houses. In my constituency I am being asked at what date everything goes over to the local council. That is a fundamental question. There are others of the same nature. It does not help our credibility as Members of Parliament or assist with our concern for new towns if we constantly raise a question that is totally irrelevant to the state that we have reached with new towns.

Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) is quite right to say that new towns are precious to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. It is because they are precious, because we are concerned about those who live in them and because the Bill has to do with the transfer of assets that it is appropriate for us to consider the options for those who are affected by the transfer. We have to ask whether they should be


transferred into council housing or be given the option to become owner-occupiers.
I return to the Government's observations on this Lords amendment, an amendment which the Under-Secretary was right to say has been changed a number of times since it was originally moved in this House. It has been changed because we have tried ad infinitum to meet the points of Government comment and criticism. It was changed in the other place at least once to meet the Government's wishes. It is a sad reflection that if the Government wanted to meet us they could have removed the technical deficiencies and ensured that the amendment was correct.
What we have seen is a rearguard action on the part of the Government, attempting to shore up what they see as their interests in public housing. The Government have consistently said that, in their view, if the amendment were carried we would be restricting the flexibility of district councils in their housing management. Council housing today is probably the most inflexible area in all our housing stock. We all know that a person in a council house will hang on to it because he will be unable to get a transfer unless he is particularly fortunate in his advertising and manages to exchange with someone in another part of the country. It is pretty difficult to move within a housing authority area even where waiting lists are short. People will not move. They believe that they have an asset and they want to hang on to it.
If we are honest, we know that part of the unemployment problem rests on the fact that people are not willing to leave their council houses. Far from encouraging flexibility, it is in the nature of council housing, more than new town housing, to create inflexibility. In the other place the Government Minister said:
Need should be determined locality by locality in the light of housing needs and conditions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13th July 1976; Vol. 373, c.255.]
We all know that the housing waiting list is a notoriously poor indication of need in an area. I am surprised that an organisation like Shelter should so recently have devalued its case on the

housing cuts by using the waiting list as an indicator of need.
We are here dealing not with local authority housing but with Government housing. This is housing that has been created by Government funds to set up a new town or provide jobs in a new area. On the whole, the investment has not been made by the local authority. I and other hon. Members have consistently suggested that local authorities should not have to make any investment. The Government have met us in large measure by making sure that the costs of development were borne by the Government. We are not denying anything to a local authority. In transferring the assets to local authorities, we are providing them with a bonus. We are not giving them anything that they had necessarily as of right.

Mr. Newens: I am having difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's argument. He said that waiting lists were not reasonable indicators of housing need. I find that difficult to understand. Then he went on to talk about locality. Surely he is aware that, for example, the London satellite new towns were built in part to deal with the housing problems of those who lived in London. Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that waiting lists provide a good indication of housing need in an area. How can he justify the position he has taken up?

Mr. Morris: I have been the chairman of the housing committee of a London borough. I have reviewed the list on occasions when I was chairman, and whenever that was done we found that about 10 per cent. of those on the list were dead and that at least 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. had moved elsewhere. It must be remembered that the list is open to everyone. It is not necessary to prove housing need to go on the list. The hon. Gentleman and I could put our names on such a list. Such lists are not a good indication of need. The sooner the hon. Gentleman and his party understand that, the sooner we will begin to face up to the housing problem.
The Government have consistently said that there would be enormous administrative problems in arranging for a statutory right to sell at the point of transfer. We have heard about problems of specification, loan debt, compensation payments


and sensible management, for example. The Opposition take the view that it is the job of the officers and those concerned with transfers to ensure that they meet the public's need and make arrangements to suit the public.
The Government, have said that it would be unfair to certain tenants if they were denied the statutory right to buy at the time of transfer. For instance, someone living in Crawley might have the right to buy at the time of transfer while someone living in my own town of Northampton might be denied that right. It is said that it would be unfair for Crawley to be given such a right while the people of Northampton were denied it. I do not think that is a realistic argument.
I also question whether the time that the Government envisage between the transfer of first, second and third generations of new towns will be as long as they have suggested. It seems to all my hon. Friends as we have gone through the months of debate on this subject that the Government's objections have been getting weaker and weaker. We started in May, when the Government were resisting the sale of any form of new town houses anywhere. In the summer we had the statement from the Secretary of State who was formerly masterminding the Bill that in certain circumstances he would allow the sale of new town houses. The Government have said that they are not against owner-occupation. The country awaits the day when they will say that they are for owner-occupation.
In considering the positive reasons for the amendment, I shall place on record one or two of the background facts. First, it is a pity that the Bill will get on the statute book rather later than we had hoped. It left Committee in May and was held up. It did not reach another place until 29th June. Consideration was completed in another place inside a month—namely, on 22nd July. I believe that the Opposition in both places have done their job in welcoming the Bill in principle, considering it in detail and moving the amendments that they consider right. The delay—there has been a delay—does not necessarily reflect on the Ministers now occupying the Govern-

ment Front Bench but reflects on the Government's management of business in general. I hope that we shall have a statement from the Minister that in no way will there be a change from the original schedule.
When considering the amendment, it is worth reminding ourselves of the extent of sales in the past before the right hon. Gentleman put down the chopper. In 1971 there was the sale of 2,700 units. In 1972 15,500 units were sold and 7,200 were sold in 1973. It is relevant that against the total background, especially the present financial situation, we have seen a significant cut-back in public sector housing this year. It is a cut-back that I personally welcome, but its significance should be noted. It has been cut back from a forecast of 110,000 per annum in May 1976 to 90,000 for 1977 in August 1976. That is the latest forecast, and, as we all suspect, it may well be cut again. That is a 20,000 cutback, saving about £200 million, on top of which there are the restrictions on new towns and housing associations.
Another background factor in considering the merits of the amendment of which it is right we should remind ourselves is that about 53 per cent. of the homes in England and Wales are owner-occupied and about 31 per vent. are in the public sector. It is also right that we remind ourselves that about 75 per cent. want to own their own home. It is our job to mirror that desire.
Why have we pressed the amendment so strongly? We have done so because the tenants in the new towns want it. I shall quote from the Cullingworth Report. It is no good the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) shaking his head in dissent. It is the most recent definitive evidence that we have about the desires of tenants in new towns. I am setting out not my prejudices but the desires of new town tenants.

Mr. Newens: What date is it?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Morris: The report was published near enough 10 years ago; the Committee reported in 1968. Since that time the desire for owner-occupation has increased considerably. As an example I shall select two towns at random in page 67 of the report—namely, Crawley and Stevenage. Both towns serve the London


area and are probably of greater relevance to the majority of Members in the Chamber. When tenants were asked how many believed that development corporation houses should be sold, 75 per cent. were positively in favour and 16 per cent. gave a qualified "Yes", while 9 per cent. were against in Crawley and 7 per cent. were against in Stevenage. That was in 1968. If the Government honestly felt that the attitude had changed, the least they should have done before presenting the Bill would have been to carry out a further attitude survey in those towns.
I am willing to wager that the attitude has not changed one iota. Labour Members know that just as well as my hon. Friends and myself. If we take into account the stock of public housing in the new towns and take the older towns of Stevenage and Crawley as reasonable examples in 1968—in this instance I concede that the figures may be a little out of date—it emerges that in 1968 only 11 per cent. of Stevenage was owner-occupied and 26 per cent. of Crawley. Those percentages are so far away from the national average and from the desires of the majority of people in the new towns that the House has a real obligation to ensure that owner-occupation is increased to somewhere near the national average.
We must remember that those who live in the new towns are no different from those living in other areas. They are ordinary people who want the ordinary things of life. We need to speak plainly in the House. We need to say plainly that it is our job to meet their aspirations, not to put difficulties in their way. We need to understand, as I am sure the majority of Labour Members appreciate, that people want a house with a garden. I think we all accept that. On the whole, that is what they want. The vast majority want to control their own home. They do not want a tenancy agreement and rules and regulations. They want to shut the front door and know that they are in their own home and will not have busybodies interfering with them. People want those conditions because they offer some independence of mind and some peace and quiet. They want the absolute security of tenure that will give them and their families a sense of freedom.
The majority of people in this day and age, or at any other time, want to

benefit from any growth that takes place in the economy. There has been all too little growth in the past two years, but they want to benefit from any growth that takes place. They also want to benefit from any increase in the value of property. They want to have the benefit of the tax relief on mortgage interest, and that is no bad thing.
It is our job to ensure that public money is spent wisely. Probably we have all read with a gasp the report of a recent House Committee that upwards of £1,000 million was misspent by the Government in general. Labour Members know that selling is financially attractive. Indeed, the Secretary of State admitted that selling would be financially attractive. That is because at present levels we are not covering repairs and maintenance, let alone making a return on contribution on houses now being built.
The average rent for a three-bedroom five-person house in Northampton is £7·34 and the average cost rent is between £40 and £50. Therefore, it is costing the average taxpayer about £2,000 per annum per dwelling for new property now being built.

Mr. Newens: And the hon. Gentleman wants to sell the old ones.

Mr. Morris: I want to sell them all. Whichever way we look at the issue, whether it is in terms of newly built local authority housing versus the first-time purchaser or any other situation, the local authority house is costing us about £1,300 in subsidies compared with the first-time purchaser's mortgage relief costing us £290. If our proposals make sense to the tenant and if the Government believe, as they should, that they make financial sense to them, they should recognise that their responsibility is to use central Government money wisely.
We want to press home on the Government how important it is that they should use this money wisely. All the evidence suggests that we should take every opportunity to encourage people to buy. Transfer of these new towns is an ideal time. Then there are economies of scale, as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) can confirm, in terms of the production and transfer of deeds. The process is simpler then. The survey I have referred to showed that there are worries among


the tenants about the prospect of becoming council tenants, and it is morally right that we should, on transfer, give them the option to buy or to become council tenants.
By our amendment, no one would be compelled to buy. If a tenant did not want to buy, he would not be forced to do so. But it would give the opportunity to those who wanted to buy to do so. It is not too late for the Government to change their mind. The Government were ready to slap on a ban in 1974, and they are beginning slightly to relax it now. The facts are irrefutable. The tenants want what we propose, and it would be financially beneficial to the public, who invested the money in the first place. Labour hon. Members know, too, that the move towards greater owner-occupation is in everyone's interest, if not in the Labour Party's interest. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) made some astonishing statements, one of them about the unreliability of the housing list. As any London Member knows—and the hon. Gentleman must know it, too—the vast majority of the people on the housing list are there for very good reasons. We are not on it. People in such positions as ours would not be on a housing list. Naturally there are people with a greater claim and with greater need than others. The point that the hon. Member was making is irrelevant to the one that we have been trying to put throughout the Bill on this issue.
It is not the housing list that is of concern here; it is the average waiting period, which is a very different thing. It is the average waiting period not of anyone who happens to put himself on the list, but of very carefully worked out categories of people—and that means, as far as the new towns for London are concerned, Londoners in need. That is the issue with which we are concerned.
I recognise the Opposition's enthusiasm for home ownership, which is shared by most, if not all, those on the Government side of the House. No matter what the hon. Gentleman says, we are keen on home ownership. I make that statement

clearly because some people suggest that we simply do not mind it, or are not against it. On the contrary, we are in favour of it. But we recognise also, as Government and party, that we have a responsibility to people in London and other major cities who live in housing need—for example, the elderly and disabled—and for whom the right housing cannot be found in the areas in which they live but can be found in new towns.
If there is a dogmatic attitude it is that of the Opposition. We have taken a flexible attitude, designed, as far as possible, to equate the needs of those who are in desperate straits with the natural desire, which we want to encourage, of people to own their own homes.
That is reflected in our sales policy, about which there has been a good deal of misunderstanding among hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) told us that his new town was apparently forbidden to sell houses. Without advice, I do not know precisely what the waiting period situation is there, but if it is less than three months, and if the new town corporation wishes to do so, it can do what, for example. Milton Keynes and Northampton have done—obtain consent for the resumption of sales of houses in its area.

Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps the word "forbidden" was a little unfair. The corporation did not achieve the criteria laid down by the Government.

Mr. Barnett: That is precisely the point I am making. I am grateful for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. These are the criteria that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture tried to observe when he was Minister for Planning and Local Government, and which the Government continue to try to observe.
The hon. Member for Northampton, South raised the question of the current delay which he says is taking place in our consideration of the Bill. I do not think that his case is tenable. An attempt was made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—who even went to the extent of writing to The Times because that newspaper appeared to agree with the Government rather than with him—to show that the


delay in the Bill was the consequence of action by the Government rather than by the Opposition.
I do not want to get involved in that argument, but I want to be generous to the lion. Member for Northampton, South. There may be a case for certain elements of delay. Perhaps the original plans to get the first transfers going next year could have been difficult in the light of such considerations as the commitment of staff and the drawing up of transfer schemes. On the other hand, as the Bill now appears, and with the plans that we now have, I think that it will almost certainly be possible to effect a considerable number of transfer during the coming year, with a view to seeing that they take place early in 1978.

So, if the matter can be generalised, perhaps one of the side effects of the delay, whosever fault it was, is to give at least first generation new towns the chance to draw up transfer schemes and make proper arrangements for staffing, and so on, with the result that we can hope to see proper transfers taking place at the end of the first three months of 1978. But I can do no other now than again recommend that we disagree with the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 160.

Division No. 365.]
AYES
[8.27 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Ashton, Joe
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hatton, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bates, Alt
Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley


Bean, R. E.
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orbach, Maurice


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Palmer, Arthur


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Canavan, Dennis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cartwright, John
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn


Clemitson, Ivor
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roper, John


Cocks, Rt Han Michael
Jonas, Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Rt Hon w. (Kilmarnock)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ryman, John


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sandeison, Neville


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Gerald
Selby, Harry


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kelley, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kerr, Russell
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tarn
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Small, William


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spriggs, Leslie


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McElhone, Frank
Stott, Roger


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Strang, Gavin


Evans, John (Newton)
McGuire. Michael (Ince)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Faulds, Andrew
MacKenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madden, Max
Tomney, Frank


Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan
Torney, Tom


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon
Urwin, T. W.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ward, Michael


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, John
Watkinson, John


Golding, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Weitzman, David


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Whitlock, William


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Moonman, Eric
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)




Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Woodall, Alec
Young, David (Bolton E)
Mr. Ted Graham.




NOES


Arnold, Tom
Hampson, Dr Keith
Parkinson, Cecil


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hannam, John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Ian


Bitten, John
Holland, Philip
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Biggs-Davison, John
Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Body, Richard
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Rathbone, Tim


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hurd, Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
James, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Brotherton, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Budgen, Nick
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jopling, Michael
Rost. Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Burden, F. A.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sainsbury, Tim


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Scott, Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Clegg, Walter
Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Silvester, Fred


Cope, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sims, Roger


Costain, A. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, T. H. H.


Crouch, David
Lawson, Nigel
Speed, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Drayson, Burnaby
McCrindle, Robert
Stanley, John


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mates, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mather, Carol
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fox, Marcus
Mayhew, Patrick
Tugendhat, Christopher


Freud, Clement
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mills, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Miscampbel1!, Norman
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Glyn, Or Alan
Moate, Roger
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wall, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan, Geraint
Walters, Dennis


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mom's, Michael (Northampton S)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wells, John


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Griffiths, Eldon
Nelson, Anthony
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Neubert, Michael



Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. W. Benyon and


Hall, Sir John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. John Corrie.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pardoe, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 4 disagreed to.

Clause 6

EFFECT OF TRANSFER SCHEMES

Lords amendment: No, 5, in page 8, line 20, leave out "except that" and insert
but—
(a) the Secretary of State may direct that any land shall not be so treated if, in his opinion, it is inappropriate to do so; and
(b)"

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 20.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment, together with later consequential amendments, was tabled in response to the views of local authority representatives on the Finance Sub-Group of the Official Working Group on the Bill. Clause 6(6) requires that all buildings or other land transferred to the district council or managed by it,


shall not be treated as having been provided under Part V of the Housing Act 1957, if in the Secretary of State's opinion, it would be inappropriate to do so.
The objective of this provision was to ensure that the expenditure in respect of the property was chargeable to the council's housing revenue account and thus qualified, where appropriate, for subsidy. However, it was pointed out that some of the housing related assets which may be transferred or managed under the terms of the Bill are not eligible for housing subsidy and, had they been provided by the district council, would not necessarily have been included in the housing revenue account. Examples are meeting halls and recreational facilities. To require the district council to include them in its housing revenue account could be contrary to its normal practice and could create anomalies in administration.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 6 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 9

FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 10, line 37, leave out from "relevant" to end of line 39 and insert
portion (for the time being determined) of the corporation's total capital loan debt (so determined)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 16 to 19.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of these amendments is to enable the Secretary of State to determine that a specific amount of the development corporation's total capital loan debt, rather than a proportion of it, is to be attributed to the assets which are transferred to the district council or are subject to management arrangements.
I make it clear that nothing in these amendments changes the basic principle behind the financial arrangements in the Bill, namely, that assets will be transferred on the basis of outstanding loan debt. Their purpose is to clarify the detailed application of the basic prin-

ciple and to remove some doubts expressed by representatives of both the local authorities and the new towns.
These doubts stemmed from one fundamental problem, namely, that development corporations do not formally allocate their borrowing to specific purposes. During any one year a corporation may, for its general development requirements, including housing, receive a number of separate advances from the National Loans Fund, each repayable over a fixed term of 60 years at a stated rate of interest and by equal annual instalments of principal and interest. The amount spent on housing in that year may, therefore, derive from several different loans, and this process continues from year to year. Thus after, say, 30 years' work the total spent on housing will derive from a whole range of different segments of borrowing.
For subsidy, rent and other purposes, however, the annual revenue consequences of that expenditure must be determined and each development corporation therefore maintains a housing account under rules laid down from time to time by the Secretary of State. In this account loan charges notionally reflecting the year's housing capital expenditure are debited at interest rates based on the average rate of borrowing during the year. This account therefore gives a fair picture of the annual cost to the development corporation, but it is based on notional figures, rather than specific attribution of each segment of borrowing used for housing purposes.
Because the total accumulated housing capital debt, which under Clause 9 is to form the basis for the determination by the Secretary of State of the annual amount payable by the district council, is in fact made up of all the various segments referred to, doubts were expressed whether the use of the concept of "proportion" would require detailed examination in every year of each segment of borrowing, taking account of the period of that particular segment of loan remaining outstanding compared with the total. It was also suggested that the use of the word "attributable" might actually require such a detailed examination of historic borrowing.
A further complication in relation to attribution of debt is that the proceeds


of houses which have been sold by development corporations have not generally been used to redeem the original capital borrowing. Instead they may have been used to finance further development, which may or may not have been housing. Thus the original segment of "housing debt" remains but the moneys which it now represents may have been recycled for other purposes.
These complications would render a detailed attribution of actual use of borrowed money an immensely complicated task. Therefore, it has always been the intention that there would be an arithmetical attribution of capital loan debt for the purposes of Clause 9 and that the annual payment by the district council would be based on average rates of interest. The representatives of the development corporations and district councils have pressed, however, that the annual payment by the council should, as far as historic debt existing at the date of transfer is concerned, be a fixed sum over a known period—this period to be the average of the repayment periods for the corporation's various outstanding loans at the time of transfer, between 40 and 50 years for most corporations. This has been agreed and these amendments enable this to be done.
There is one final point. Under the provisions for management arrangements, a development corporation may continue to incur expenditure on house building and this will clearly increase the portion of debt to be attributed to the provision of housing. But this new debt will be readily identifiable, and these amendments will mean that it can simply be added, year by year, to the "historic" figure instead of involving a full recalculation of the proportion of the total debt attributable.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 14 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 14

NEW TOWNS STAFF COMMISSION

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 14, line 25, at end insert—
(1A) If the Secretary of State accepts any advice given to him by the New Towns Staff

Commission under this section which he thinks should be brought to the attention of all the relevant authorities (that is to say, every new town corporation and the council of every district within which any part of the area of a new town is situated) or to one or some of those authorities, he shall notify the Commission of his acceptance and shall direct them to take such steps as they consider appropriate to bring the advice and its acceptance to the attention of all the relevant authorities or, as the case may be, such of them as may be specified in the direction.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords Amendment No. 24, in page 14, line 31, at end insert—
() give directions to any relevant authority whose attention has been drawn to any advice under subsection (1A) above requiring them to take such steps as may be specified in the directions to implement any of that advice so specified".

Mr. Barnett: The effect of this amendment is that if the Secretary of State wishes any advice given to him by the New Town Staff Commission to be brought to the attention of the new town corporations and the district councils within whose areas a new town is situated, he can direct the Commission to take such steps as it considers appropriate to bring the advice and the fact that it has been accepted by the Secretary of State to the attention of the authorities. He can then require that all such authorities are notified of the advice or specify certain authorities who are to be told.
The amendment removes a slight deficiency in the provisions of Clause 14 by providing that where the Secretary of State so directs, the New Towns Staff Commission shall bring to the attention of new town corporations and relevant district councils advice which it has given to the Secretary of State which he has accepted. It is expected that the Staff Commission will probably do this by issuing circulars, as did the Local Government Staff Commission. This will enable the Staff Commission to promulgate to the corporations and councils the detailed recommendations which my right hon. Friend expects to receive from them for the protection of staff affected by transfer schemes.
The Staff Advisory Committee—the Staff Commission designate—has been


undertaking extensive consultations with representatives of employers and employees about the effect on staff of the transfers and have been giving top priority to the question of "ring fences"—that is, restrictions on recruitment—and arrangements to minimise staff uncertainty. It will be clearly helpful if my right hon. Friend can direct the Commission to bring its recommendations to the attention of the relevant authorities.
This amendment links with Amendment No. 24, which provides that when the Staff Commission has notified relevant authorities of advice it has given to my right hon. Friend, which he has accepted, and it becomes clear that a particular authority is reluctant to implement the advice, my right hon. Friend will be able to use his power of direction under the amendment to require them to do so. The Government hope that the mere existence of this reserve power will help persuade authorities to follow advice which the Staff Commission has brought to their attention and that therefore it may not in the event prove necessary to use it.
The proposed power is well precedented—in each of the enactments dealing with the local government and National Health Service reorganisations, there were similar reserve powers. It further strengthens those provisions of the Bill which are designed to ensure full and fair protection of the interests of staff of both the new town corporations and the district councils which may be affected by transfers.

Mr. Michael Morris: We welcome this useful amendment, but we are concerned that the latest return of manpower statistics shows a 4 per cent. increase in housing management staff.
If there are to be surplus personnel from the new towns at the time of transfer, we have agreed that they should have priority, but if there is this considerable increase at a time when there is supposedly no increase in staff levels, it will prejudice the new town employee's chances of getting another job.
Perhaps the Minister will bear in mind that some of the third generation new towns already have joint management schemes with district councils doing the housing management. Is it the Govern-

ment's intention to suggest to the New Towns Staff Commission that second generation and other third generation towns should move rapidly towards joint management schemes?
Lastly, I think that it would be fairer to those involved if the Government were to make it clear that, whilst they will do all in their power to ensure that those who have jobs at present will be found jobs, inevitably some degree of redundancy will have to be faced.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I should like briefly to answer the two points made by the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr. Morris). I can give him a definitive answer about joint management schemes. I know what he is talking about. I can see the desirability and justice of the idea that joint management schemes should be recommended in second and third generation new towns. However, I should prefer to write to the hon. Member on that matter.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the manpower implications. Inevitably, as a consequence of certain transfer schemes there will be redundances. The proposals, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are designed to protect the interests not merely of those appointed to serve as members of the staff of district councils to which housing activities have been transferred, but of those who, unfortunately, will be made redundant as a consequence of these schemes. The hon. Gentleman will probably agree that the provisions should—as we hope they will—be relatively generous. That is my reading of the work that is being done by the New Towns Staff Committee at present.
I hope shortly to be in a position to give my reaction to the first report which we have received from that Committee and to announce our proposals and recommendations on the basis of the useful and valuable service that the Committee has given. We are extremely grateful for the amount of consultation that it has undertaken. For this reason, I am studying its recommendations with close attention. I have already made a decision on some of the issues, but on others I have still to make my final decision on the basis of certain consultations that I still need to hold. Shortly after the passage of this Bill into law, I hope to be in a


position to announce our recommendations on the basis of the Committee's report.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 24 agreed to.

Lords Amendment Nos. 25 and 26 disagreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Guy Barnett, Mr. Benyon, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Michael Morris: Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — BAIL BILL [Lords]

Lords amendments to Commons amendments considered.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

BAIL FOR ACCUSED PERSONS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons in page 15, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert:
'2. The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied, that it is probable that the defendant, if released on bail'
with the following amendment: leave out 'it is probable' and insert
'there are substantial grounds for believing

9.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may discuss Lords Amendment No. 2 to the Commons amendment.

Mr. John: The first amendment goes back to the drafting of the Bill as it originally left this House and was started in another place. The formula was that the court, before refusing bail under Schedule 1, had to be satisfied that it was "probable" that the accused had done one of the acts set out in Schedule 1. In the other place, at the insistance of Lord Hailsham, a test was substituted that an unacceptable risk should be the criterion that magistrates should adopt.
We believed then, and we believe now, that this would be far too low a duty upon the magistrates and would in practice lead to no greater granting of bail despite the promise of bail contained in Clause 4. That is why, when this House previously considered the matter, the decision was to reintroduce the word "probable". When the matter went back to the other place, substantial doubts were cast upon this definition.
The Bill is an important one and, therefore, in the interests of getting it on to the statute book—and giving in statutory form a general right to bail for accused persons—it was felt that we


should move towards a formula which would satisfy both sides. The agreement that I now seek from the House is to insert, instead of "it is probable", the words
there are substantial grounds for believing".
I would make two points. First, there is the presumption in Clause 4 of the right to bail. That is an important point. The second point is that the court must be satisfied that there are substantial grounds. I have heard many fears expressed as to what the courts will have to take into account, but I believe that the combination of the statutory right to bail—unless circumstances are to the contrary—and the need to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds will impose upon the courts a very high duty indeed before they will be able to refuse bail.
It may be argued that in percentage terms it may be a slightly lower duty. Nevertheless, I believe that it is still a substantial duty and will in practice mean that those who are entitled to bail will not be deprived of it. I think that the formula which has been devised, which received a rather grudging welcome from Lord Hailsham but a rather more warm welcome from Lord Wigoder, will commend itself to the House because it is something to which the other place has taken an objection perhaps rooted more in heat than in light. Nevertheless, it means that the duty upon the court is a high one if it is to refuse a person bail.
The second amendment is a modification to Part II of the Schedule 1 which relates to the granting of bail to defendants accused or convicted of an offence not punishable with imprisonment. The effect of Part II, as amended, is that such a defendant need not be granted bail if he has failed to surrender when granted bail on a previous occasion and the court believes, in view of that failure, that he will fail to surrender if released on bail on the present occasion. This was an amendment which was put down with consistency of wording.
I believe that the words now in the Bill do not undermine the principle of the Bill, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Edward Gardner: The presumption in favour of the grant of bail created by the Bill without proper

safeguards would have left the public at severe risk from accused persons who took advantage of their continued freedom to commit more crimes. Originally, the only safeguard provided by the Government against that risk was a statutory formula so dangerously narrow and restricted that in most cases the court would have found it impossible to refuse bail and remand an accused person in custody. It would have been a weakness in the law that would have made the hair of judges and police, and, I suspect, the public, stand on end.
The alternative acceptable and workable formula provided by Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone was substituted in another place but was rejected and replaced by the original form of words when the Bill came back to this House. Now, after further consideration by their Lordships, the Bill returns with a compromise formula to which we can give our approval and, indeed, welcome, if not with enthusiasm at least with a sense that there is now in the Bill a reliable and practical safeguards against the abuse of the general right to bail which will not disturb the basic principles of the Bill.
The Opposition, therefore, welcome the Government's decision to accept this compromise solution, which demonstrates once again the indispensable function of a revising Chamber which can improve and make acceptable what otherwise might prove to be defective legislation without being in any way provocative on a wholly non-party Bill. May I dare to hope that the Government will give an equally agreeable reception to amendments to Bills which are in future sent back from another place?

Mr. David Weitzman: The House will remember that in Committee and on Report we discussed and gave considerable thought to the words which should properly set out the position. The Minister of State moved the amendment in Committee, and the House, after discussion, accepted the words "unacceptable risk". We all had misgivings when the House of Commons accepted the substitution of those words. I fully appreciate and agree with the compromise that has been reached in the amendment before us but I want to draw attention to what I regard as a serious matter.
The House having passed the amendment, Lord Hailsham, in another place, actually accused the Minister of State of complete arrogance in daring to put back the original formula which the Lords had disapproved. He actually suggested that as the other place was the revising Chamber it simply was not good enough for what he called the "Jacks in office" in this House arrogantly to put back words which the Lords had deliberately changed. In other words, the noble Lord was saying that as the Lords had decided on a certain formula this House should not dare to alter it. I think it is right that the attention of the House should be drawn to this. I am sure that all hon. Members, including those on the Opposition Benches, will deprecate as strongly as possible any suggestion of that kind.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I support my hon. and learned Friend, and go a little further than he did. As he said, the probability risk formula was debated in Committee and on Report, and on both occasions, on a Division, the probability risk was written into the Bill, despite attempts by hon. Members, who happened to be on the Opposition Benches, to change it.
It is surprising that the Minister who on these occasions, initiated the change and made a detailed and lengthy defence of the probability risk, should abjectly accept a botched-up compromise worked out not in the Lords but behind the scenes before it got there. It is surprising that he should almost turn a somersault and reject an important part, if not the core, of the Bill. The amendment goes to the core of the Bill and demands and deserves a more intensive debate than it has had either in the House or in another place.

Mr. Weitzman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a threat by Lord Hailsham that if this was not done we might not get the Bill at all. If that is so, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State acted properly.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. and learned Friend is right. From the remarks in another place by Lord Hailsham it seems clear that he acted arrogantly and petulantly. I take exception to and feel resentment towards the noble Lord's re-

marks about this House. It is right that this House should look at legislation that comes from the Lords. It is no good at all for Lord Hailsham to say, in a tantrum, that this House has no right to interfere in his legislation and draftsmanship. It is improper for him to say that it is sheer arrogance for us, "the Jacks in office", to change his wording. It is clear that he made a behind-the-scenes threat to kill the Bill unless the Government acceded to his requests and the amendments made by the Lords on a previous occasion.
It is disturbing that a non-elected person, speaking only for himself and what he called "informed opinion"—which, by implication, does not exist in this Chamber—should seek to legislate on his own and tell us what this House shall alter or revise in legislation that comes from the other place. It is deeply offensive to hon. Members and to the House as a body.
I want to ask the Minister about the cobbled-up compromise. He has admitted that there was a compromise, but it has not been discussed by the House and we have not had an opportunity substantially to change anything. With whom was the compromise conducted and concluded? What kind of behind-the-scenes manoeuvres went on to buy off the hostility and juvenile resentment of Lord Hailsham? Who was consulted on the redrafting of this crucial and important part of the Bill?
What does the amendment mean? What do the words, "substantial grounds for belief" mean in practice? Is that not as subjective a formula as that which we proffered previously. What criteria would the court have before it? What specific grounds would it consider in determining whether there were "substantial grounds for believing"? The House deserves a much more comprehensive answer from my hon. Friend than he has given so far.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Labour Members should not let their enthusiasm for the destruction of the House of Lords and their desire to find every opportunity to criticise the activities of noble Lords who participate in the deliberations of that House lead them into using this opportunity for an attack upon Lord


Hailsham for what he said. If they do use the opportunity, they should not be allowed to get away with it.

Mr. Weitzman: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the House of Lords makes a decision we should not interfere with it? Those were the words of Lord Hailsham.

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. and learned Gentleman should not put words into my mouth. If he will do me the kindness of waiting to hear me develop my point, perhaps he will have less to say in interventions.
The House of Lords is a revising Chamber. It performs that function never so well as when it is concerned with legislation to do with the operation of our courts. That is because it is full of the most distinguished and successful practitioners in the law. Many of them are judges and some have risen to a distinguished pedestal in our judicial system. For example, Lord Hailsham has served in the office of Lord Chancellor with outstanding distinction.
That being so, in matters where that sort of expertise is available the advice which that House gives should be listened to by this House. Few of us have anything like that wealth of experience—even fewer among those Labour Members who have opposed the amendment, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), who has served the courts for many years with distinction.
In order to save time and to put this Chamber right, the House of Lords has made suggestions. I do not think that it matters very much just how irritating the form of words used may or may not be understood to be; the important thing is that the House of Lords sought to improve the Bill. The Minister now concedes that the improvement in the Bill introduced by the House of Lords is acceptable to the Government. If the Lords amendment had been accepted earlier, perhaps time would have been available for more debate on some of the other matters which have arisen in this House.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Are we not right to be suspicious about the words of anyone who wants

to denigrate and diminish the influence of this House? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to what he said in the House of Lords the noble Lord made a statement on television about wanting to see a constitutional system with a type of Supreme Court, where judges, rather than the House of Commons, would make the laws? I thought that that matter—the rights of this House—had been settled in the period of the English revolution. I hope that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will fight staunchly for the rights of this House against the Lords or anyone else.

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point made by Lord Hailsham in his Dimbleby Lectures when dealing with the problem of an elective dictatorship. He was suggesting not that the judges should make the law but that they should interpret the law according to the wishes of the majority of people in our society.

Mr. Heffer: That is the same thing.

Mr. Lawrence: It is nothing like the same thing. Although I accept, and indeed appreciate, the compromise concession made by the Minister, I believe that the public will be misled if they feel that this Bill makes a substantial contribution to the system of criminal justice. Nothing in the Bill will make it more likely that people will be released on bail who might not otherwise have been released.
If only the Government had devoted more attention to what else could have been done to improve the penal system, particularly in improving the working of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 in accordance with the recommendations of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure set up to consider its ineffectiveness, the cause of penal reform and justice would have been much better served and the time devoted to this Bill would have been better used.

Mr. John: With the leave of the House, may I point out that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) delivered himself of an amazing series of misunderstanding statements about the Bill. He said that nobody wanted the Bill, that it would not change anything and that what was needed was


criminal law reform. He thought that we should have devoted our attention to other matters. He ignored the fact that a working party on bail procedures recommended these measures and that that body was composed of academics as well as of distinguished practitioners in the law. Furthermore, the hon. Member said that if we had accepted the earlier formula it would have saved a great deal of time. No doubt it would, but the earlier formula involving the concept of unacceptable risk is nowhere near as strong as the formula now in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) drew a sharp distinction between the words "probable" and "substantial". I hope to convince him that the division is not as great as he thinks and that the test in the Bill is a strong one.
I did not pay a great deal of attention to the words of Lord Hailsham, save perhaps where he expressed his views on the constitutional place of the House of Commons. If his words are to be taken as being the only constitutional doctrine, I would disagree with them. I believe that Lord Hailsham was profoundly wrong and that he did a great disservice to those who served on the Standing Committee when he drew attention to the care with which we canvassed these matters. We may disagree with the noble Lord, but when the occasion arises that imputations are made against the good faith and good sense of members of a Commons Committee it is surely a legitimate matter for criticism.
The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said that the formula as it left the Commons was defective. I disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk said that we must have regard to the parliamentary situation. Again, I agree that we should be foolish to ignore the realities of the parliamentary situation. I can tell my hon. Friend that the consultations about the formula put forward by the Government in the other place were between members of the Government, among others my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend asks what the phrase
substantial grounds for believing

means. He asks what criteria would be adopted by the court. When he talks of a subjective test, it is true to say that almost every test is subjective. Even the word "probable" would mean that the test which the court made on the word "probable" would be subjective. There would be a subjective test of the words
substantial grounds for believing".
The words mean, first, that the court has to be satisfied, not with speculation, not with a convenient "get-out" for denying a person bail, but that there are substantial grounds for believing that a person will, for example, fail to surrender to bail or will commit another offence. That is more than mere speculation. It is more than ordinary chance. There is a strong duty upon the court. If that has not been understood by those who have read previous debates, I am happy to emphasise it tonight.
The criteria are those which will be built up in practice. There are no criteria laid down in the Bill, except in Schedule 1, which suggests the type of thing which might entitle a court to deny bail to an accused person.
Clause 4 of the Bill, like so many other clauses bearing that number in other legislation, enshrines an important principle, namely, the right of an accused person to bail. That right can be taken away only if the high degree of responsibility which falls upon the court under Schedule 1 is discharged.
What I had to bear in mind was that, if the word "probable" was objectionable, no amour propre on my part—I accept that I believed that "probable" was a good word—should be allowed to stand in the way of the Bill becoming law. The formula now in the Bill lays an onus on the court which it will find intelligible but which will not allow it to evade its responsibilities to grant bail as a right. That onus will permit the court to refuse bail only when there are substantial gounds for believing that the accused will either not surrender to his bail or will commit another crime.

Mr. John Ryman: Will my hon. Friend deal with this practical problem which, I anticipate, may well arise? Since the granting or refusal of bail is always a discretionary matter, and since the courts when refusing bail do not


normally deliver any form of judgment but simply say that the application is refused, how will a person or his legal representative making application and invoking the proposed section know whether the court has followed the suggested formula? When submissions are made on the lines of Clause 4, how will a court, in granting or refusing an application, discharge the duty laid upon it?

Mr. John: If my hon. Friend examines the Bill, he will see that, for the first time, written records of such bail applications and the reasons for decisions are to be made. The difficulty he sees will not arise.
I commend this proposition to the House, not in any spirit of what has been described as abject acceptance but believing that we have been reasonable in saying that what we are wedded to is the principle and not necessarily the word. We have upheld the principle, and I hope that the House will do the same.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2 to the Commons amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — POULTRY MEAT HYGIENE

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1209), dated 29th July 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th August, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House if we take at the same time the following food and drugs Prayer:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Scotland) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1221), dated 30th July 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th August, be annulled.

Mr. Jopling: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I merely move the motion now, and I hope that it will be possible for me to speak a little later in the debate.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am grateful for the opportunity of inter-

vening in this debate, because it is of the greatest importance that these regulations should be seen for what they are—a threat to some extent, however limited, to the way in which we in this country organise our environmental health services.
I begin by a declaration of personal, though not financial, interest in the sense that I was President of what is now called the Environmental Health Officers' Association and am now one of its several vice-presidents. No financial consideration is involved, but I have been interested in this work for a number of years and my greatest concern is that these regulations interfere with the way in which we organise our environmental health services.
In the past, we have always organised our community health services on the basis of having a general purpose officer, as it were, covering a very wide range of community health problems. The situation is different on the Continent, where people tend to work through a series of separate specialised bodies. We believe that our general purpose officer has proved to be the most successful.
We claim, rightly, I believe, that our environmental health services are amongst the best, if not the best, not only in Europe but perhaps more wildly. Our environmental health officer of today has a very wide range of duties and is trained and qualified to be responsible for them. He covers such things as the improvement of housing and the problems of slum clearance, air pollution, industrial and factory hygiene, noise, food poisoning, meat inspection and poultry inspection, which is the subject of these regulations.
We have always insisted that it is only by having an officer responsible for this very wide range of duties that we are likely to understand the way in which our problems interlock. It has been our practice, in legislation passed under both Governments, to insist that it shall be the responsibility of the local authority to decide who, in a particular case, should be the responsible officer. We have therefore become used to the term "authorised officer" in some of our legislation rather than specifying individual persons for particular duties.
Thus, recent legislation has taken away such terms as "town clerk", "medical


officer of health" and "public health inspector". Yet these regulations, for the first time in our recent experience, may introduce a specific officer—the veterinary officer—in place of the normal term "authorised officer".
I am seeking to impress upon the House that the regulations do not merely involve a matter of professional pride or argument between two sets of highly-qualified people on whom we rely, the veterinary officer on the one side and the environmental health officer on the other. We are dealing with a matter that is very much more important to the way in which we organise our services.
When we come to the specifics of the regulations and the inspection of poultry meat provisions, the regulations are consequent upon a European directive. Although in most cases the directives turn their attention to the objectives that they seek to achieve, they do not normally specify in detail the particular officer who is to carry out the duties. The normal concept is that it is left to the individual countries to determine the precise way in which the objective will be achieved. That is not so in this case. We have particularisation to a remarkable degree. Although I welcome the fact that the regulations are considerably different from the draft orders that were circulated earlier for discussion, which went into even greater detail and which to the minds of many of us were even more offensive than the present regulations, we still have a greater degree of particularisation than is common or normal.

Mr. John Roper: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the particularisation in poultry meat parallels what already exists for red meat?

Mr. Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend rightly raises a warning note, because no doubt it will be argued by my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are concerned purely with poultry meat and that there will be no suggestion of extending these provisions to enable the veterinary officer to deal with red meat.
It is already the case that for export purposes a veterinary officer's certificate is required. That has been the position for some time for poultry meat and red meat. We have always relied upon our own provisions for home consumption. We

have had repeated expressions from Ministers, of both parties, about the high quality of work that is done by qualified and experienced health inspectors who are responsible for the carrying out of the inspection in slaughterhouses and in the processing of the meat. It is our concern not only that the health inspector is to be withdrawn from work that he has done throughout the years to our great satisfaction but that the veterinary officer is to be brought in to engage in work that he has not been accustomed to undertaking.
The veterinary officer has rightly been in charge of the live animal and everything concerned with it. In any matter concerned with the live animal, the health inspector has always approached the veterinary officer for advice, very rightly and absolutely. However, when it comes to the carcase and inspection at the slaughterhouse, the position is different.
Indeed, that is acknowledged in these regulations because now, as distinct from the original draft regulations, the health inspector is accepted, under the term "authorised officer", as one of those entitled to determine whether the premises are suitable for the purpose of the slaughter of poultry and the passing of poultry through the poultry meat house. If he is to be accepted for that duty, one would naturally think that he should be entitled on equal terms—not necessarily exclusively, but on equal terms—to be available and responsible also for the inspection, but under these regulations he is not.
It is that form of particularisation of the veterinary officer that alarms us so severely. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper)—perhaps not altogether understanding the implication—has so rightly warned us, this is the process that might very well be extended also to red meat and, indeed, to other forms of processed meat much more generally.
The health inspector—rightly, to my mind—has always been trained to be the responsible and qualified person in charge of hygiene work in processing factories of a very wide character. It is, therefore, a matter of very much concern to very many of us—on both sides of the House, I am sure—that these regulations introduce a new type of provision which, on the one hand, will endanger the whole


organisation of our environmental health services in this country, and, on the other hand, particularise as to which officer shall carry out certain duties to which we have not been accustomed in the past.
I declare myself as a supporter of the Common Market and not as an antagonist to it, but that does not mean that I accept automatically the views that it expresses, nor do I in these circumstances believe that it is essential for us to accept the recommendations sent to us in the directive in the precise form in which they appear. Indeed, I welcome such amendments as my hon. Friends have managed to secure in the regulations as against those originally drafted and circulated.
I ask my hon. Friends to carry on with their good work and to secure the relatively modest further amendment to enable the health inspector, as we have always known him, or the environmental health inspector to be on equal terms and authorised to do the work that he has always done to great satisfaction in this country rather than have his place taken by a new officer at very great expense. It is almost impossible to calculate how much expense would fall on the local authority concerned and how much would fall on the consumer.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: I apologise for not being here when the debate started but I had not anticipated the speed with which the earlier legislation would be completed.
These regulations were tabled on 4th August—almost at the last minute before the Summer Recess—and I reacted immediately by tabling this Prayer with my hon. Friends, to ensure that a full and proper debate would take place upon the subject, after all the controversy that has surrounded the regulations.
Community Directive No. 118 of 1971 was the initiation of a new regime in poultry hygiene. It was in existence, as the House knows, when we joined the Community. Subsequently, that directive was amended by Directive No. 431 of 1975. The important part of the process still to be completed is the introduction and implementation of the directives in the member countries, including in particular the United Kingdom.
In December last year the Government produced their first proposals and, as the House knows, and as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has said, those proposals were greeted with widespread criticism and condemnation.
There is no need here to rehearse the details of the proposals, but almost all the interested parties objected to them. For example, the British Poultry Federation produced a 24-page document of submissions against them and proposals for amendment. The National Farmers' Union was also completely dissatisfied, as were many other interested organisations. As a result, as we know, the Government held a lengthy and continuing series of discussions, which went on throughout the summer, and the regulations now before the House represent the result of those discussions.
The regulations are vastly different from the originals. Numerous changes have been made, all of them acceptable and welcomed. Some of us wonder how and why the original proposals ever came to be formulated. They were not wanted they were not justified, and they proved to be unnecessary.
I shall not weary the House by listing all the changes. Many hon. Members, myself included, were determined, for example, to reprieve the sentence passed on the New York-dressed sector, especially. That is only a small sector of the whole, but it is of great significance for many farmers and small producers, and for turkeys for the Christmas trade. Certainly we are extremely glad that this trade, small though it is in proportion to the whole, can now continue without time limit.
It is fair to say that with the exception of the environmental health officers the whole poultry industry and the interested organisations are broadly in favour of what is now proposed, and the House will want to weigh that fact carefully.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is also still true that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has very strong views about it.

Mr. Pym: That is so, but these regulations raise a number of important questions. Obviously, there is a strong case in principle for improving hygiene standards. Just as more or less everyone is against sin, I suppose that more or


less everyone is for better hygiene. It is important for our export trade. For poultry and for other meat it is indispensable that hygiene standards should be internationally accepted. In the case of poultry, the export trade is small but potentially significant. Therefore, these regulations are important from that point of view. If improvements in hygiene standards can be achieved for the home trade as well, that, too, is desirable.
There are two main outstanding controversies, which relate to the cost of the whole exercise and to the position of the environmental health officers. I want to ask the Minister a number of questions and to seek certain assurances from him. These are of direct relevance to the attitude that hon. Members will wish to take. We know that some will be against these regulations, anyway, on an anti-Community basis—

Mr. Neil Marten: No.

Mr. Pym: Some will be, but that is no basis for deciding the matter, as the hon. Member for South Shields said.
First, as to costs, what is the truth about the additional cost per bird? I appreciate that apart from £5 million of Government money for modernising slaughterhouses the consumer and not the taxpayer or the ratepayer will pay the additional cost. In recent weeks the Government have been saying that the additional cost will be about 1p per bird. However, that figure is disputed. A letter produced by the NFU yesterday refers on page 2 to the smaller processors, and it says that 4p to 5p per bird has been quoted as the likely cost. The House will definitely want to know what justification the Government have for saying that it is 1p, and whether the figure suggested by the NFU is accurate or inaccurate. What is more, as this is an additional imposition on food prices, albeit a small one, the House will want to be satisfied on that point now.
The Government are still undecided about the cost of training poultry meat inspectors. They have been asked to underwrite and pay for the cost of training new inspectors. We want a statement from the Minister on that aspect.
The National Farmers' Union, in the letter to which I referred earlier, raised a particular matter in the last paragraph when it mentioned paragraph 22(2) of

the regulations and the Minister's power to direct local authorities about charges. We want to hear from the Minister on that aspect tonight.
There is the question of phasing in. If these regulations are phased in gradually, obviously they will work better and are more likely to be successful and practical. Also, they should make the whole process more economical. If too much is expected too quickly it is bound to cost more. We want an assurance on that point.
Then there is the environmental health officers' case, and the first question that arises relates to the number of veterinary surgeons mentioned in the Ministry's own explanatory note. In paragraph 13 it says that the equivalent of 100 full-time veterinarians will be required ultimately to operate the regulations. When the environmental health officers met my hon. Friends they said that they thought that 100 veterinarians would be required within a year and that the number would probably build up ultimately to about 300 or 400. Will the Government tell us the real position?
The environmental health officers service will not be withdrawn, as the hon. Member for South Shields indicated. It will play an important rôle in the whole process, but the veterinarians will be added to it in a supervisory capacity.
By far the biggest fear of the environmental health officers, and the most important aspect to them, is the implication for the future of this new policy for poultry meat inspection. I quote from a letter that most hon. Members received from the Environmental Health Association. It said:
The significance of the new regulations goes far deeper than poultry. They are seen by officers as the thin end of what could be a very thick wedge.
It went on to say:
The regulations will establish the further principle that the EEC may not only decide the conditions under which we can export poultry to other member countries, but can dictate what we must do for the protection of our own consumers.
Do these regulations imply, and do they contain the possibility, that what is proposed for poultry can be applied to other meats? This is a vital question for environmental health officers and they have a practical professional interest.
Paragraph 14 of the Ministry's explanatory memorandum says that the Govern-


ment have already given assurances, both in Parliament, and to the Association. It says:
They (the Government) will oppose any move to extend veterinary supervision beyond the slaughter house to domestic food hygiene.
But that does not go far enough and does not meet the point about the thin end of the wedge.
The environmental health officers have served this country well for a century. There is no equivalent on the Continent; therefore we can understand the officers' anxiety. They have an important role to play in poultry meat hygiene, in these regulations. What assurance or undertaking can the Government give us?
Are there other Community directives waiting in the wings, as it were, to be wheeled in to apply to other meats? As my hon. Friends and I understand the position, no such other directives exist. Therefore, our environmental health officers' position can be fully protected. However, they are extremely worried, and I know that the House will pay careful attention to what the Minister has to say about this very important issue.
There are other issues in relation to EHOs, but those are the two main issues that I single out in this opening speech.
Finally, the House will wish to hear what is the justification for these regulations, on public health grounds. There has been no opportunity yet for the Government to present the case for them in the House—which is one reason why I put down this Prayer. It is the first statutory scheme for poultry meat inspection, and if these regulations are to operate, with all the costs involved and the extra staff, the House will want to be satisfied that what is laid down here is the right and proper way to proceed, and the best way.
We know that the poultry industry is extremely keen to have these regulations implemented; indeed, it has forecast extremely serious consequences if they are not. We know that the NFU is now in favour of the regulations, although its letter of yesterday cannot exactly be described as wildly enthusiastic. We know that the Government and the veterinary profession believe that these regulations are a valuable advance for hygiene standards, which is an objective that the whole House would share. However, I

am convinced that this debate is absolutely necessary, not only so that hon. Members can express their views but also, and in particular, so that the Government can deal with the items of main concern that I have listed.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call any other hon. Member to speak, I should like to say to the House that this debate will last probably until 11.30 p.m. I have a list of Members with urgent constituency interests who obviously want to be called and I shall be able to call everyone who wishes to be called only if we have brief speeches.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I shall try to be very brief. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) should not imagine that my vote tonight against the regulations has anything to do with my being anti-Common Market. I shall vote against them because I am a Conservative and because I think that this proposal is an unnecessary expenditure of public money, which we are advocating should be cut. This is my basic reason.
I do not believe that these regulations are necessary for health reasons. For generations, for centuries, we have eaten our fowl as we wanted, and this has not caused very much trouble to the health of the people of the United Kingdom.
I recently tabled a Question to ask
how many people in each of the last three years have become ill through eating diseased or unwholesome poultry meat or food which has been contaminated by the guts or other viscera from poultry.
The reply was:
1972, 29; 1973, 34; 1974, 29".—[Official Report,11th March 1976; Vol. 907, c. 298–9.]
Therefore, it is a minuscule health problem.
The argument that suddenly we need this simply because we have joined the Common Market is not a very serious reason for advocating these regulations. I take the view that, if we go on like this and other regulations are put forward by the Common Market to deal with purity of water and this, that and the other, as a nation we shall become so cosseted that when we step outside the tariff barriers of the EEC into a foreign country we shall all collapse with diseases. If one goes


to a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, for example, if it is held in a hot climate it is remarkable how many people collapse. I have always followed a good rule that I learnt during the last war.

Mr. John Hannam: Boil the water.

Mr. Marten: It is not to boil the water. If one goes to a place such as Cairo, which is not the healthiest of places, the first thing one does is to go into one's bathroom, turn on the tap and drink a glass of clean, Cairo bath-tap water. If one does that throughout one's life, one becomes immunised. I have always done that and so far, touch wood, I have not fallen ill. I think that the health reason is spurious.
It is said that the regulations are needed for export, but according to figures from the Department of Trade the export market in chickens in the 12 months to April this year totalled £828,000. This is a minute amount and there is no evidence that exports will increase. The export argument is very weak.
I am against the regulations because the Government will be putting in £5 million capital cost for structural improvements. The expenditure is unnecessary in this context.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire wrote earlier this year

that increases in costs of a result of EEC poultry hygiene regulations would have to be borne by the consumer. He added:
The present Government has already saddled the public with rising food prices, with the prospect of further inevitable and horrific rises. All this is a totally unnecessary burden on this sector of the agricultural industry and it will cost the consumer dear.
I am not sure whether it will cost the consumer 1p a pound or 4p a chicken, but it will be quite a lot. The people who have addressed our Committee have given us to understand that the running costs will be £10 million to £14 million a year—which will be passed on to the consumer.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) raised the question of public employees. I have here a letter from my local council, which is concerned about the level of inspection required and the cost which will have to be borne by the consumer. The council reckons that the present proposals for inspection services are excessive.
We were told that the number of public employees would increase by 1,000 to 1,500, of which between 100 and 400 would be veterinary surgeons and the rest public service employees. It is Conservative policy to cut down the number of public employees.
I shall vote against the regulations on grounds of increased costs and increased number of public servants. The regulations might be all right if they were optional for those who wished to export, but why must we have them for those who do not wish to export?

10.4 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I do not go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) in his reasons for rejecting the hygiene purposes of these regulations. There are arguments on both sides. My hon. Friend said that 28 or 30 people were taken ill each year with various types of poisoning as a result of eating diseased chickens. But they are only the cases which have been reported; there were probably many others that were not reported. However, this is not the basis of the argument. The basis is that we are improving hygiene regulations to safeguard the health of people in this country and throughout the Community.
I have a great deal of difficulty over these regulations. I assume that they are meant to follow the Community regulations and directives of 1971 on hygiene, with the amendment of 1975. If so, there are discrepancies which must be cleared up tonight.
I accuse the Government of deliberate misrepresentation, not only in the House but outside. Ministers have been saying that, because of these regulations, New York-dressed poultry will continue indefinitely. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) picked this up and reiterated it in his speech. But it is not so, and the Member knows it. The amended regulations show quite clearly that eviscerated chickens can be a derogation up to 1981 and no further. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me on 24th August—I have his letter here—after these regulations were laid, and said:
Although the directives place a limit of August 1981 on the provisions for New York dressed sales by producers beyond the 'farm gate', we have not put a similar time limit in our regulations thereby allowing for the possibility that the Community provisions may eventually be changed.
The reality is that they are not changed now. The Minister's predecessor, now Lord Peart, and the right hon. Gentleman himself have been gambling that between now and 1981 they will be able to renegotiate these directives. They have no right to do that. That was what the Parliamentary Secretary said; anybody can see the letter. It is not private Therefore, the view circulated through-

out the country that New York-dressed poultry will be allowed indefinitely to continue to be sold at retail level, not across the farm gate from the producer to the consumer but via a third party, is quite erroneous, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. I questioned Commissioner Lardinois about that matter at the European Parliament, and it was confirmed.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, when he becomes Minister of Agriculture within a short time, will be able to renegotiate that regulation. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to mislead the House and the country by saying that that can be done. I find it difficult to accept these regulations as they stand. I shall not go into the details, Mr. Speaker, because you have asked us to be brief. Schedule 4 is the crux of the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman in his reply looks at Regulations 3 and 4, he will see that the exemption lasts only to 1981. Let him study his own regulations. The right hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House, producers and processors about this issue, because he is wrong.
I turn now to another matter which concerns the environmental health officers. There has been a certain amount of controversy over this matter. It seems that we have got ourselves into a misunderstanding over what is involved. When I first saw this regulation from the Community and the regulation from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, it was drafted so that only veterinary surgeons could do ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections not only in big but in small slaughterhouses. This seems incredibly wasteful and expensive. My right hon. Friend said that cost would escalate. It seems an unnecessary imposition. We have well-trained EHOs in the country, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said. Therefore, why should they not undertake these inspections?
I have spoken to members of the veterinary profession in this country. Indeed, I had the pleasure of opening their international conference only a month ago. They persuaded me that there are certain functions which only veterinary


surgeons can fulfil—for example, microscopic investigation. Nevertheless, it seems to me that what was originally in the regulations would vitiate any environmental health officer making a career for himself in that calling.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will explain why he was convinced that it was necessary to have training of a veterinary surgeon in order to make these microscopic investigations?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention because I was not particularly clear on the subject. I am not a veterinary surgeon, nor am I a scientist, and one can be baffled by science. Nevertheless, a good case was made by British Veterinary Association members that some cases of salmonella poisoning cannot be detected by the eye and need proper investigation. Presumably that would explain the need for microscopic and bacteriological knowledge which understandably the ordinary environmental health officer does not possess. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] He is not trained to that level. If I were asked whether he could be trained, that would be a different issue.
I tried to find out the exact intentions which Commissioner Lardinois would be putting forward to the Council of Ministers and what his interpretation was of the regulations which had been passed by the Council and which the British Government are now to implement. He made quite clear in a letter dated 18th July, which I sent to the Minister, that the kind of supervision which he, as Commissioner, envisaged being adopted in this country was having one veterinary surgeon in charge of perhaps a county or a region with the environmental health officers working under his supervision. There was no question, as the Minister said in a subsequent letter to me, of a veterinary surgeon being required to do post-mortem and ante-mortem inspection at all large plants throughout the country.
The interpretation of Mr. Lardinois was that there would be one veterinary officer per county, or perhaps even one per region, which is cutting it down enormously. I understand entirely that the veterinary profession does not quite see eye to eye with that interpretation. It

obviously wants to have closer supervision. But there simply are not enough veterinary surgeons available at present to fill all the vacancies when they occur. In this particular case, there would have to be veterinary supervision by the veterinary surgeon himself.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will make it quite clear that a proper career structure is available for environmental health officers, that there will be only the necessary veterinary supervision and that at best this will mean only one veterinary officer per county or one per region. I hope that that is what will happen.

Mr. Dan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the observation that the scheme will require no more than 500 extra vocational or professional staff?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I sincerely hope that it will be a darned sight less than that. Unless my mathematics are at fault, and as far as the counties are concerned, there are slaughterhouses which will require only something between 30 and 40 if that is the method by which the Minister decides to implement the directive and the regulations. That is all that is necessary. It need not be more than 20 or 30, but I fear that it may well be between 500 and 1,000. That would be wrong, and that was why I put my name to the motion. I do not believe that the scheme will be implemented in the way I have suggested. I believe that the environmental health officer should have a proper career structure.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields that what happens to poultry meat and white meat may well apply to red meat. Why not? It is right that it should be done on a European Community basis. Let us get it right tonight. If we do not, we shall be in a dreadful mess later. That is why it is absolutely essential that the 1975 directive is properly interpreted.

Mr. Marcus Fox: My hon. Friend, serving as he does in the European Parliament, is a specialist in these matters. He said that between 400 and 500 veterinary surgeons might be involved. If that is so, it could have a grave effect on the way we vote. Some


of us are concerned about the duties of environmental health officers.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It is not for me to say how the Government will implement the regulations. The Minister in a letter to me dated 14th October said that he expected a veterinary surgeon to be employed in every large plant. That means, presumably, that for ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections the total could be 500 at least. It is not for me but for the Government to reply to my hon. Friend. I fear that that is the way the Government intend to implement the regulations, but they will be wrong to do it in that way. There need be no more than between 30 and 50 veterinary officers involved at the most, and that is how I hope the Government will implement the regulations. For those reasons, I support the motion.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I never cease to be amazed by Conservative Members who, having swallowed the entire camel of the common agricultural policy, on issue after issue strain at a gnat—or, in this case, a chicken.
I am in the peculiar position of not being a great lover of the Common Market and, at the same time, not straining at the gnat of these regulations, bearing in mind all the lunacies of the common agricultural policy. The regulations are not without merit, despite the arguments used by the Conservatives. I wish that they would stop this nonsense. They brought us into the Common Market without proper consultation of the people and without proper consultation of the House. They raise these issues for no other reason than to make cheap political capital.
In attacking the lunacies of the common agricultural policy, I am not prepared at the same time to refuse a welcome, however grudging it may be, to certain aspects of improvement. There are certain merits in the regulations, regardless of their origin. I exempt from all my strictures the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).
The regulations contain improvements which the Government might have considered in the past. I am in favour of any regulations which lead to an improvement in animal health regulations and

in the food which is produced in this country. There are such elements contained in the regulations. There are also questions to be asked, and we shall ask them.
My first view was that environmental health officers were largely to be superseded. I understand now that that is not so. I hope that we shall receive some clarification about that. I am concerned that the regulations should not lead to loss of jobs or to loss of status.
I understand that veterinary officers will be used in a supervisory capacity but that environmental health officers will sometimes be used in fairly senior positions within the administration. I should like verification of that. I hope that on the administrative side there will be no need for any loss of status. I wish environmental health officers to have an equal involvement, but, if the standards are changed, by definition that will alter the present position. There may be no loss of status, but I should like the Government's comment on that. I am not prepared to push this to the point that there can be no improvement in hygienic conditions because of the necessity to bring in a higher level of expertise. In that way no progress is made.
We are dealing with the future of the industry. Whether we like it or not, many markets will be blocked to us if we do not adopt regulations such as these. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) nods his head in agreement, but I wish he had not been so grudging in his speech. Hon. Members have raised the problems of the EHOs and veterinary surgeons. They have said that international trade in many areas demands this veterinary involvement. The Swann Report stressed the importance of the relationship between the abattoir and farm and the resulting following up of health aspects.
Having argued over the years for that, it is difficult for me to object to regulations, whatever their source. I am not in the same hypocritical state as Opposition Members who swallowed the entire camel of the Common Market.
Hon Members want the Minister to comment on the role of veterinary surgeons and EHOs. Do we have enough veterinary officers? There appears to be a pattern of increasing age in the service. If we are not to have sufficient veterinary


officers, can we involve the EHOs in supervision? I do not accept some of the exaggerated numbers which have been suggested, but I can see difficulties even if the minimum number were correct. One of the reasons for the difficulty is that so many young veterinary officers have moved into the private domestic sphere—as we read in the stories by Mr. Herriot—and they prefer that to the public service.
Where will the cost lie? I am not happy about that aspect, but I approve of the £5 million public subsidy for slaughterhouses. I am in favour of improving health conditions in our abattoirs, but I wonder to what extent the cost of supervision will be borne by the consumer. Such questions require an answer.
My previous doubts about the regulations were based on my fear of their effects on the small man, because that is particularly important in this industry. There is also the question of "New York-dressed". There are one or two curious phrases in the regulations. For instance, what is meant by "neighbouring authorities"? Many authorities are surrounded by half a dozen others. Are we talking in terms of distances or of time between killing and when the product reaches the market? Are we right to say that accepting "New York-dressed" will benefit the small man by allowing him a monopoly of fresh-killed poultry? Is the industry's welcome for it merely an endorsement of the big man's case?
My acceptance is partially grudging. I hate health regulations or anything else to be dictated by the exigencies of the market, but the Government should have taken action a long time ago. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions, particularly that about the status and future of the environmental health officers.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Having read the regulations, I came to the conclusion that the nation could not afford to use people with six or seven years' university training to look up the backside of chickens to see whether they were edible. Some hon. Members have said that that is not so, and that the veterinary officers will not do any of the in-

spection but will employ assistants to do it.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) seemed to imply that one of the arguments for employing veterinary officers was that certain work required to be done which an ordinary environmental health officer was not qualified to do. Yet it appears to me that the highly-qualified, expensively-trained veterinary officer will, in areas such as mine at least, be at best 15 or 20 miles from the nearest killing house. I do not know what his involvement with the chicken will be if that is the arrangement. Why the whole business cannot be given to the environmental health officers, and thus save money and university training, I do not know.
The general improvement of regulations must be treated with sympathy, certainly from the Liberal Bench. Having been brought up in a rural environment, I can assure hon. Members that improvements in hygiene in the killing of animals are required. I have been at one end of the pigs' house killing chickens and helping to gut them while the pigs were doing whatever they chose to do at the other end. The fact that that will be made illegal is to be welcomed.
I do not understand completely the question of the marking of the birds to show that they have been passed. When the cover is removed from the bird, the mark will be destroyed. Will it therefore be illegal to sell parts of chicken? If the butcher will be allowed to hack up a chicken which has already passed the test somewhere and sell parts, he will immediately destroy the marking. If that is to be made illegal, well and good. If not, I wonder what is the purpose of putting on the marking in the first place.
My final point concerns what I suspect to be the cause of many of the health dangers in the selling of poultry—the freezing and thawing, freezing and thawing, and so on, that goes on in the butcher's shop. Whether or not the chicken has a fancy mark under the cover, I suspect that four freezings and thawings can do more harm than anything else.
I admit that I know very little about the regulations, although I tried to read them. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make clear exactly what the veterinary


officer will do. If that officer is not involved in the judgment, why employ him anyway? I hope that the Minister will also comment on the dangers of thawing and freezing.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: It cannot be denied that there is much in the regulations that is good and extremely desirable. The general public have a right to the highest standard of cleanliness in the production and preparation of their foodstuffs. But there is still much about the regulations that worries me. The first matter is the whole principle of Common Market interference in the minutiae of everyday commerce and everyday life. It seems that by the regulations the Common Market is trying to harmonise and standardise all preferences and tastes at regional and national level throughout the Common Market. That could be a mistake, because there are individual preferences and tastes which are to the benefit of everybody. However, the constant standardisation and harmonisation continues. The neat and tidy bureaucratic mind likes neat and tidy regulations with which to standardise everybody. If we take the process too far, everyone will be the loser.
There seems to be in the regulations a kind of overkill in the name of safety, with every chicken inspected. Perhaps this is all very well in theory, but can it be fulfilled in practice? We must bear in mind the extra expense that will be involved in new buildings, in the training of inspectors and in creating adequate numbers of veterinary surgeons. The cost of the regulations will be borne by the poultry industry, which has taken a fair hammering financially. Its feeding costs have escalated rapidly. We know the extra burdens which have been placed on agriculture by the EEC's skimmed milk provisions. Those provisions alone have meant a massive increase in costs to the industry.
The Government's concessions in respect of dry plucked birds will be of more use to the turkey producers aiming at the seasonal Christmas market than to the full-time, all-the-year-round chicken processors.
I ask the Minister to consider extending the 50 per cent. grant to producers with fewer than 200,000 birds, because

that would help the medium-size business. The Government have tended to miss out in help to that group.
The argument that United Kingdom firms must raise themselves to EEC standards if they are to be fit to take part in export markets tends to fall down in many cases in a Scottish context. I have in mind the medium-size firms which do not export at all and whose efforts are aimed at the home market. They will find themselves in the worst of all possible worlds since, although they do not export, they will still be required by the regulations to raise their buildings to the required standards at considerable expense. I ask the Minister to examine the situation of such firms in Scotland.
I am concerned about the practical effect of the regulations on manpower and the costs to the industry and also to the housewife. Many conflicting figures have been given in this debate. The Government put the average cost of inspection at 1p per bird, but the NFU instanced a figure as high as 3p to 4p per pound of finished product. Which is the correct figure? May we be told on what the Government figures are based so that we may reach a judgment? The Government should seek to reassure the poor housewife, because she is the one who will end up paying for these changes.
Fears have been expressed that some smaller firms may be driven out of business. Does not the Minister accept that there are differences in scale and that rules based on requisites for large firms might not be applicable to small firms? The small firms can operate effectively and hygenically without the massive outlay on plant required in the larger companies. Again, I ask the Minister to examine that aspect of the matter.
I wish to mention one point of definition. On page 2 of the regulations we see the word "fresh" as including "chilled" or "frozen" meat. I notice that some supermarkets are advertising "fresh frozen chickens". That surely is a contradiction in terms and could be misleading. Does it mean "freshly frozen" because it has been frozen within a short time, or does it mean merely "frozen"? To my mind, a chicken is either fresh or frozen—there is no area in between. I hope the Minister will examine these matters of definition.
If the Government are determined to force these regulations through, will they pick up the financial obligations created by their own measures? Certainly, more Government help is needed to meet the costs. The figure of £5 million is fine, but will it be adequate to help the industry—and will it be taken to the places where it is needed? There must be careful regulation of its effects in the Common Market. I hope that the Minister will keep an eye on the situation in the EEC to ensure that its members raise their standards in the same way as the United Kingdom is expected to raise its standards, otherwise we shall face unfair competition if we obey the rules and they do not.
I also ask the Minister to watch the position in a United Kingdom context and ensure that the small and medium-size businesses are not drowned in extra costs. I hope he will also ensure that the supply of veterinary surgeons and poultry meat inspectors is adequate and available where needed.
Let us remember that the customer—the housewife—is always right. I hope that the Minister will guarantee the situation long beyond 1981 and will devote a great deal of thought to these matters.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am no great expert on either agriculture or on the Common Market. In my constituency chickens are eaten rather than raised. This is only the second time that I have spoken in a Common Market debate. I want to make the same point as I did on the first occasion, which was a debate about Common Market attempts to make it more difficult for us to train postgraduate doctors part-time. The same principle is raised in these regulations.
I, too, have been subjected to the same sort of pressures as other hon. Members, as Vice-President of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. In addition, my own environmental health officers have made representations to me. My point is that what we are discussing is symptomatic of what we shall see in regulation after regulation from the Common Market as it attempts to impose a European professional attitude—which does not necessarily accord with the

development of the professions and our way of doing things in Britain—upon the law and, therefore, the economy of this country.
When we were discussing the postgraduate medical training regulations, because doctors do not train part-time for post-graduate medicine in Europe it was assumed that they should not be allowed to carry on in Britain with a pattern of training which was traditional. Eventually we managed to make some dent in that argument. Here again, because on the Continent there has not been the growth of the profession of environmental health officers, there is this attempt to impose upon us an expensive and absurd system of inspection which has nothing to do with the way we go about things here.
I am particularly concerned because I am interested in the development of training and in the teaching profession in Britain. I am proud of our flexible system of development as against the inflexible system in many Common Market countries. If it had not been for Britain's entry to the Common Market, that system might have gone on with an absurd set of regulations based on hours of study and attempts to correlate them between different countries. Common Market countries can be thankful that we saved them from that.
The attempt to put expensively trained veterinary surgeons in charge of a process which is inappropriate to them is a sign of something we shall see coming to this House again and again. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins said that he was of this opinion until somehow the veterinary officers persuaded him to think otherwise. He was asked how he had been persuaded, but he did not seem to tell us what the arguments were. We have to use our imagination. I certainly have not been persuaded.
Environmental health officers are members of one of a number of professions which we have developed on a pragmatic, sensible basis to meet a need as opposed to operating on a traditional basis, allowing the professions to dig themselves in and demand privileges which inevitably mean increased expenditure for which the consumer pays. It is right that we should draw attention to


this symptom as it is manifested in the regulations. Over the next few years I can see a whole range of other areas where we shall be asked to absorb what are fundamentally alien systems of inspection. I hope that we shall resist them on each occasion, as I intend to resist the regulations tonight.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The House will have observed from the Order Paper that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the special attention of both Houses to these Instruments
on the grounds that they make an unusual or unexpected use of the powers".
conferred by the statutes under which they are made. I draw the attention of the House to the Thirtieth Report of the Committee.
The preamble to the regulations states that the regulations are made
for the purposes of Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 ….in relation to the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community … in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by the said Section 2(2) and in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by Sections 13 and 123 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955".
In a few respects the regulations go beyond the order-making power given to Ministers and Secretaries of State under the Food and Drugs Act. They therefore rely for vireson the order-making powers in the European Communities Act to take up the Food and Drugs Act powers, and for the enforcement of the provisions of that Act there is Section 100 of the Food and Drugs Act 1953 which allows right of entry to inspectors to premises where they think that poultry-dressing may be taking place.
The proviso to Section 100 is that if entry is to be into a private dwelling 24 hours' notice must be given. That does not permit a right of entry or enforcement under the provisions introduced by the European Communities Act. Therefore, in the regulations there is Regulation 25, which gives inspectors a right of entry for the purpose. However, for some extraordinary reason the proviso of 24 hours' notice in the case of a private dwelling has been left out. Although it is clearly in Section 100 of the Food and Drugs Act it has not been repeated in the regulations. The House has always been careful to examine rights of entry

into people's homes, and there is no good reason for the omission of the proviso in the regulations. There is no reason for entry without notice.
The Thirtieth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, having taken evidence from officials of the Department concerned, found the following:
The Department … admit that there is no reason why such a proviso should not be included. The Committee consider that it was unnecessary to grant wider powers to inspectors than were granted by the Food and Drugs Act and that this was not necessary in order to implement Article 6 of the EEC Directive under the European Communities Act. Consequently, they consider that the regulations make an unusual use of the powers granted under the Acts.
I must ask the Minister to give the House an undertaking to introduce an amendment to the regulations to attach that proviso, the protection against immediate entry into a private dwelling by the provision that there shall be 24 hours' notice. I ask him to give the House an undertaking that he will bring in an amending order to add that proviso to Regulation 25.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I address the House as one who in 1974, on the balance of argument, was a pro-EEC person. For that reason I have grave recriminations about the present situation. It is possible that had I then appreciated the implications of the legislation in greater detail my judgment might have been different. I say that openly and willingly. I have no doubt that the EEC is doing itself considerable harm by trying to get this sort of detailed harmonisation. It is ridiculous that there should be a requirement for such harmonisation.
I have a strong constituency interest in that a number of firms, partnerships and sole traders operate there who could not only be affected but could be killed off. I agree with what the hon. Member for Derbysire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said about the position of New York-dressed poultry after 1981: that that trade may well be killed off. We all agree on the need for hygiene, but if we have £12 million or £14 million to spend on food safety and hygiene there must be other ways in which the money could be used to greater benefit—for example, research


into food additives. No overwhelming case has been made for the regulations. The Consumers Association in March 1976 raised substantial questions about them which have not been answered.
Secondly, I believe that these regulations are unnecessary for export trade development since we already have considerable export trade in poultry. Indeed, the regulations have been accepted by the export trade. But the fact that they are necessary for the export trade does not necessarily mean that they have to be applied to the home market.
Thirdly, I challenge the authenticity of the EEC directive. It was drawn up when we were not a member, so it could not have given consideration to our circumstances, which are quite different. Our agriculture methods are different. In this context, factors such as temperature are different, as are the distances between producers and markets.
Fourthly, the regulations are impracticable in calling for the time of 100 veterinary surgeons and possibly 900 inspectors. That is ludricrous. People trained to such tasks can be used in ways much more beneficial to the community. These are bureaucratic regulations and should be rejected. I support the case of the environmental health officers. These could be the first of many Common Market regulations going down a bureaucratic path. The House should make a stand tonight and reject them.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I have only two questions to put. First, is it true that a veterinary surgeon in this country is quite a different animal from a veterinarian on the Continent? Are we speaking of like and like? My understanding is that a veterinarian in Europe is a nice chap with a short training, well qualified to look at chicken guts through a microscope.
Secondly, is the Minister aware that there are 33 export establishments exporting red meat where British veterinary surgeons, not European veterinarians, have been required to carry out inspections, and that four actually do the work, 14 do part of the examination and nine merely put a stamp on the carcase after the environmental health officers have done the work? This quite clearly in-

dicates to me that those veterinary surgeons who are charged with doing the job are unwilling to do the physical work, which they think is not their province. They believe that the environmental health officers can do it more practically and better than they would themselves.
I hope that the Minister will look at the whole position of veterinary surgeons as we understand it in this country and that of veterinarians as the Europeans understand it. I hope he will look at these two different professions and realise that the British environmental health officer is far more akin to a European veterinarian.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: These regulations represent the culmination of three years' hard work by the veterinary profession. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has stressed the need to bring our standards of veterinary inspection in this country up to the level of the standards throughout the European Community.
We are facing tonight what virtually amounts to a demarcation dispute between the environmental health officers and the veterinarians. The environmental health officers argue that a veterinary surgeon should deal with an animal when it is alive and that an EHO should deal with the carcase once the animal has been slaughtered. That is a completely out-of-date argument and does not take into account the relationship that the normal livestock farmer has today with his veterinarian—the most important argument for the House to consider tonight.
If an environmental health officer condemns something in the slaughterhouse, that is the end of it. There is a problem with the carcase but there is no feedback to the farming industry. Today, what any livestock farmer wants is to have his veterinarian see his carcases through the slaughterhouse so that there is the necessary feedback to the farmer. The veterinary surgeon is the only person competent to deal with livestock both before it is dead and after it is dead. From the farmer's point of view, the EHO who is dealing with dead livestock is of no help whatsoever. The only


person who can really help the livestock farmer is the veterinarian if he knows the past history of the flock, the herd or whatever it might be beforehand and then sees the results in the slaughterhouse.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is not the hon. Gentleman assuming first that the veterinary surgeon who examines the carcases will be the one who also deals with the fanner's animals on the land, and not one who is employed by the local authority, as is likely in this case? Is not the hon. Gentleman also assuming that the veterinary surgeon will be carrying out the inspections?

Mr. Kimball: It is the feedback from one professional to another that is important—that the veterinarian employed in the slaughterhouse feeds back effectively to another member of his profession. Half the diseases mentioned in the regulations can be masked with various inoculations. Unless the veterinarian knows what inoculation the flock or herd has received, he is not likely to be able to give a proper analysis. This is another problem with which the EHO is not competent to deal.
This whole matter is a veterinarian's responsibility. The only certificate that is accepted for meat inspection throughout the world is a veterinary certificate. That is the stamp of the veterinary officer. That is the professional mark indicating that the inspection has been properly carried out.
I welcome the regulations as a means of raising the standard of public health inspection in this country.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It has been said that this is a matter of job prospects and status, but why should not the environmental health officers be concerned about their job prospects and status? If any other kinds of regulations were to be introduced in this House affecting other professions in the same sort of way, those other professions would be equally concerned. Therefore, I have listened with some attention to the EHOs who have made representations to me and to my hon. Friend when he gave an explanation to them at a public meeting in the House, and I have read the letters that he has written on

behalf of his Department as well as having listened to this debate so far.
At the end of the argument, I ask myself why the EHOs should not do the inspection both of the meat and of the slaughter houses inside this country and, if need be, let the veterinarians deal with it for export. I see no reason why that should not be done. The speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) confirmed my view that the vets are concerned only to expand their empire and that there is no real professional reason why the EHOs should not continue to inspect meat.
The only reason why we are asked to change that situation is that there is a directive from Brussels. In my view, that is not good enough. Therefore, my hon. Friend has to say why the work should not be split in the way that I have indicated. Why should not the regulations be taken back and amended accordingly? If the answer is only that the directive has already been made, I think that this House should reject the regulations, that the matter should go back to Brussels for reconsideration in the light of English needs and English experience and, accordingly, that the matter should be changed in that way.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I have a number of poultry producers in my constituency. As far as I have been able to judge, they have no objection to the implementation of the regulations. They are badly needed for our export trade at a time when, in the case of anything concerned with the export of this kind of produce or of any manufactured goods or electrical goods, if we are to have inter-Community or world-wide trade, we find more and more conditions have to be adhered to by producers, whether they be farmers or manufacturers in industry. There is no objection, provided that Community-wide laws and regulations are applied fairly.
As some producers see it, the Community has set up highly-trained meat inspectors, but that is no reason why the Community should regard as the equivalent in this country a seven-year highly-trained vet. When EHOs look at the costs, they see that this proposal would impose an obligation which seems to them to be unfair, with a vet getting £11


an hour, and an EHO, say, £2·50 an hour. That is one reason for the resentment.
The other reason stems from the fact that EHOs to whom I have talked think that too literal an interpretation is being placed upon the relevant EEC directives by the Ministry of Agriculture and that this opinion is shared by members of the European Commission. I should like to know whether that is the view of the Minister. The feeling also is that the Commission believes that the directives need be complied with only insofar as their effect is met, the method of enforcement being left to the member States.
One other point made by the EHOs to me is that there is no objection to the hygiene standards imposed by the regulations. That view is shared by the poultry meat producers. The objection is only to the derogation from the EHO of his traditional role in the food inspection service.
If, as I suspect, it is thought that the standards and training of our EHOs are not up to those of meat inspectors on the Continent, we should see to it that the EHO standards are improved. As I understand it, there is no objection from that quarter to any improvement of the inspection criteria. Therefore, if we pass these regulations, we should like to know from the Minister whether it is possible to give us the assurance that EHOs will be able to play a significant part in this sort of meat inspection, provided that standards are improved. It seems silly to me to stop the EHOs continuing their traditional role when the directive was made by the EEC before we joined the EEC and when there was no comparable officer status in the EEC.
If the Minister will give us that assurance, I am sure that he will satisfy a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: As one who had the privilege of having an Adjournment debate on this subject at the height of the problem many months ago, at which time I was highly critical of the Government's proposals, I wish to say on balance that I support the regulations as they are now drafted, with one

exception, and that is on the question of inspection. I believe that something can be done in that field with good will on all sides. These regulations are a far cry from the previous draft regulations.
I believe that we have protected the New York-dressed birds' position, at least for the present. We must fight to continue this. The small producer has been protected, and that is extremely important in the South-West, which I represent. The previous regulations were complete nonsense, and totally unfair to the small producers, particularly those who produce New York-dressed birds.
We shall be able to export once we have brought these regulations into force, and that is most important. I do not take the view or accept the argument that we are now just sending abroad a few chickens—I want to see a great export drive in this area. That is why we must have these regulations. Certainly, we in the South-West want to take advantage of the Roscoff-Plymouth ferry in which much of the poultry meat can be exported back to the Community. We should seize opportunities that the Community offers. We should start a real export drive and move into the Community's markets, just as the members of the Community are moving into ours in various other fields. Whether we like it or not—and I like it—we are in the Community now and we should make the best of it.
These regulations will result in better standards of hygiene, which is important. As the demand grows for the cheaper type of protein in white meat, so our health and hygiene regulations should be improved.
I do not believe that these regulations were brought into force only because of the Common Market. I believe that the Ministry would have done this anyway. When I was a junior Minister we were already talking about it, so hon. Members cannot blame the Common Market for this.
There is only one aspect of the regulations about which I am unhappy—the whole business of inspection. I am not happy about the in-fighting between the environmental health officers and the veterinarians. It is about time that they got together with the Ministry officials and sorted this thing out. We cannot


afford this atmosphere in our slaughterhouses. Sensible men can get together over this problem and get it right. It must be solved. I do not believe that large numbers of vets are needed to do this work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that one vet per county, or one per region, supervising the whole organisation is about right. Environmental health officers could be trained up to the standard required and they should do it. Some of the functions must be carried out by a vet. It is a pity we cannot vote against certain parts of these regulations. I would do so. But we cannot, and I feel that the good parts outweigh the one thing that is wrong—this inspectorate.
I conclude by saying that while I am highly critical of the past regulations, I believe that the Government have made some real changes which are right.

11.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): We have had a very useful debate about these regulations. I want to spend the vast bulk of the time available to me in replying to the many important points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is quite clear that the matter that is giving hon. Members most concern is the question of veterinary responsibility and the relationship of the vets to the environmental health officers. It is a fact that one of the requirements we must satisfy if our poultry meat is to be acceptable to others is veterinary responsibility for its production. There is nothing new in this requirement. Veterinary certification has been accepted international practice for many years for trade in all types of meat, and we have required it for exports to us just as others have demanded it for our exports to them.
Veterinary surveillance, when fully applied, involves the linking together of information on the live and dead condition of the bird. If carried out promptly and effectively it can benefit the poultry farmer as well as the consumer. Hitherto, we have provided veterinary certification for our meat exports by superimposing ad hocveterinary supervision over whatever system of inspection

already existed. For poultry meat exports we have had to put in a whole team of vets to deal with an export run because no other inspection system is in existence.
This is not a situation that we wish to perpetuate, and what the regulations will enable us to do is to deploy our resources sensibly and effectively. We want non-veterinary inspection to deal with the routine tasks in the slaughterhouse and a veterinarian to keep a general control over the whole operation and to watch for disease conditions in batches of birds at both the ante- and the post-mortem stages. This seems to us to be a sensible and effective use of veterinary resources.
Let me now turn to the position of the environmental health officers. These local authority officials exercise a general responsibility for food hygiene together with a wide range of duties outside the food hygiene field. It is fair to point out that as a percentage of their total work, visits to poultry meat plants have hitherto been of minimal significance. We must ask ourselves why the EHOs are so upset by the regulations, especially in view of the fact that there are several hundred vacancies for EHOs across the country.
I believe that there are two main reasons for their concern. The first is a fear that the regulations are the thin end of a wedge that will eventually put veterinary surgeons in control of the whole area of food hygiene. I accept that there are currently some problems of veterinary supervision to be solved in the comparatively few red meat slaughterhouses that are approved for export; but outside of that area I can see no cause for the EHOs' anxiety.
The Government have given assurances—and I repeat them again tonight—that beyond the poultry meat or red meat slaughterhouse we have no intention of requiring or agreeing to any extension of veterinary involvement in the duties that are now the responsibility of EHOs, and we shall vigorously resist in Brussels any proposals for such an extension. Indeed, I can go further and assure the House that we want to strengthen the EHOs' position in these areas. In other words, there is no thick end to the wedge, and we intend to keep it that way. I am sure that the House will accept these assurances.

Mr. Dan Jones: Is that a Government guarantee?

Mr. Strang: Indeed, it is.
I believe that the other main anxiety of the EHOs is the belief that the general introduction of another profession into local authority employ will cause interprofessional strains that will operate to the detriment of all concerned. A number of hon. Members have raised this point, including my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). This question has also been raised with me by the Association of Meat Inspectors. We are anxious to allay the fears of environmental health officers and to this end we wish to put forward two suggestions tonight.
The first is that local authorities, while retaining their full responsibilities under the regulations, should be able to call on the Ministry to provide them with the necessary veterinary services on a repayment basis as an alternative to taking veterinarians into their direct employ. It would be up to a local authority to decide whether it wanted to take up the offer. I believe this would go a long way to meet the worries of the EHOs.

Mr. Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Does this mean that local authorities will be able to choose what services they operate and whether to rely on the EHOs or bring in the service of veterinarians?

Mr. Strang: I must make clear that, under the regulations, overall responsibility will remain with the authorised veterinary surgeon, but my proposal goes a considerable way to meet the anxieties of the EHOs on the implications of bringing veterinarians into environmental health departments and also meets the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) on the requirements for local authorities to employ a particular type of officer for a particular function.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My hon. Friend has given assurances to the EHOs, but what assurances has he for all the councillors who object to the increased costs?

Mr. Strang: I shall come to that important point in a moment.
Our second suggestion to alleviate the worries of the EHOs is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should chair a meeting of representatives of the disciplines involved in meat inspection—the veterinarians, the environmental health officers and the meat inspectors—with a view to ironing out their differences.
Hon. Members have raised a number of points regarding the position of local authorities. I shall try to deal with them all briefly as time is running out.
I can assure that right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that we intend to phase in the regulations and that our estimate of the number of veterinarians required is 100.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) was correct when he said that veterinary qualifications varied throughout the Community, but the general period of study is between four and six years.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) implied, and a number of other hon. Members seemed impressed by the argument, that we had interpreted the directives more strictly than we need have done on the question of veterinary supervision. To remove any doubts, we asked the Commission for a clear statement of its attitude and have received this reply:
The requirements on supervision by official veterinarians necessitate the effective intervention of the latter, at each slaughterhouse and cutting premises. in the task for which they alone are responsible. Although Member States may choose to employ official veterinarians exclusively for all operations prescribed by the directives, for certain operations only the official veterinarian may be helped by assistants working under his supervision and responsibility.
It is clear that Member States must ensure that there are sufficient official veterinarians available to guarantee effective application of the directive.
In all cases the responsibility of the veterinarian presumes an effective intervention which is not purely theoretical.
Important points have been raised on the question of cost. We have estimated the cost of the service when it is fully operational in 1979 at about 1p per bird and that estimate is supported by the British Poultry Federation. There will be no cost to local authorities. The total cost will be borne by the industry which,


at the end of the day, means the consumer. In consultation with the local authority associations and the British Poultry Federation, we are trying to build up an efficient inspection service which imposes no unnecessary burdens on the industry. Our estimate of 1p per bird on average is something which we can sustain. It will not be felt in full until 1979–80. I believe that the consumer will readily pay for the assurance that his poultry has been officially inspected. The effect on the food price index will be negligible.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire referred specifically to training costs. The Training Services Agency will allocate financial resources to assist local authorities with the cost of training poultry meat inspectors recruited between September 1976 and 31st March 1978. That will be of material help in launching the training scheme.
Before turning to the purpose of these regulations, perhaps I should respond to the question of New York-dressed poultry. The derogation with regard to New York-dressed poultry—that is, un-eviscerated birds—going through the slaughterhouses applies from 1979 to 1981. Regarding the further exemption for dry plucked poultry, to which the Commission has taken no objection, it is fair to acknowledge that we are obviously going further than was originally envisaged.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) referred to the application of different standards to birds designated for export from birds designated for the home market. The basic purpose of the directive is to secure that poultry meat from our producers will, by 1979, be acceptable throughout the whole of the Community. That will be an enormous boost to our industry.
We have an efficient poultry meat industry. In the first eight months of this year we exported £3 million worth of poultry meat. These regulations are desperately needed by the industry. They will give the industry a great opportunity to export to other member States. These standards are being demanded increasingly by third countries as well. If we want to develop an efficient British industry and give it the maximum scope to increase exports, it is essential that we

acquire the standards envisaged in these regulations.
We have had an official inspection service for red meat for many years, but we do not have such an inspection service for poultry meat. Such a service has been advocated for many years by the Environmental Health Officers' Association, among others.
We are now providing consumers with a level of protection that has been taken for granted in other countries. This level of protection has been achieved in Sweden, the United States, and some member States of the Community—for example, Denmark. It is only right that the consumer should know, when she buys frozen or chilled birds, that they have been subject to an official inspection. Of course, she may continue to buy New York-dressed poultry which will not be subject to the official inspection service. The exemption extends beyond 1981. That is why the Consumers' Association has said that the consumer will get the best of both worlds.

Mr. Richard Body: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Strong: No. I promised to allow 10 minutes for the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) to wind up.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) asked us to ensure that we were not accepting requirements and laying down standards for our industry which would not be applied throughout the whole of the Community by, for example, France and Italy. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will certainly make sure that these standards are properly applied throughout the Community.
What we are talking about is giving the consumer a level of protection. We are all in favour of proper hygienic standards. It is something which should have been implemented many years ago and I hope that the House will be able to support these regulations.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: It is rare to have a debate on a Statutory Instrument at this time of night following so many months, indeed years, of debate. discussion and disquiet.
The House will no doubt remember the discussions and letters particularly


from womens' organisations with regard to New York-dressed poultry, as well as the letters of disquiet that we have received within the last few weeks from the environmental health officers. It is right and proper that we have had this debate.
I want to deal with two slants which have arisen in respect of the European connection. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is not in his place. The hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords on many occasions, particularly this year. I was glad to hear the tone of his speech. I hope that the House will get itself more and more into the habit of discussing regulations that emanate from Europe on the basis of their merits rather than perpetuating the old arguments about the Community as a whole. It was heartening to hear the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West put aside his well-known views about the Community.
I would also draw attention to the speeches of the hon. Member for Lewis-ham, West (Mr. Price) and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), who both described the regulation as perhaps one of the first of a stream of European regulations to deal with existing patterns of organisation in this country. Rather than being the first of a stream it would be more accurate to describe it as the last of a series. In fact, we are now getting towards the end of regulations that were originally formulated before we ever joined the Community. That is partly why we have had so much discussion over the months about these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ban-bury (Mr. Marten) questioned whether these regulations are needed at all. He implied that they were not necessary, as did other hon. Gentlemen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) made a fair point when he said that it must be good for the consumer to have proper hygiene regulations for food supplies.
From the inquiries I have made on the question of the way in which existing patterns work with regard to poultry meat, I find that many of the large multiple retail outlets are already instigating voluntary arrangements to inspect poultry meat both before and after slaughter, on lines similar to those envisaged in the regulations.
That seems to imply quite clearly that it is right and in the interests of the consumer, that regulations like these should be imposed. I cannot believe that the large retail outlets from which I have been inquiring carry out inspections for fun. They do so because they think it is in the best interests of their customers. Inspections are already widely carried out. They should be continued and extended over the whole range of activities.
We have heard evidence of exaggeration in some speeches that have been made. We were told that the scheme would cost 4p or 5p a bird. In a brief that I received from the NFU this morning it was suggested that the cost might go up to 50p a bird. The Minister said that the cost will not exceed 1p a bird. He was pressed on this, and I am prepared to accept what he said.
Statements have been made in the House and outside to the effect that 400 or 500 veterinary officers would have to be appointed to supervise the inspections. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) suggested that it might be necessary to appoint between 500 and 1,000. The Minister said—and I have no grounds for disbelieving him—that 100 would be a more accurate figure.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) asked whether the regulations would be the thin end of the wedge for the environmental health officers. The Opposition understand the fears of the environmental health officers. It is a matter that causes grave disquiet. We do not agree with the view stated in today's Financial Timesthat it is an irrelevant side issue. We are sympathetic to and fully understand the difficulty faced by environmental health officers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire asked whether other directives would operate to drive home the wedge between veterinary and environmental health officers, and he received a perfectly good answer to that.
It has been implied that if veterinary officers were brought in to make postmortem inspections there would be no need for vets to visit slaughterhouses. That is true. Under Schedule 5, vets will have to visit slaughterhouses to make ante-mortem inspections.
The Opposition are glad that the problems arising from New York-dressed poultry have been largely resolved. We accept the need for regulations of this sort, but we are still worried about the position of the environmental health officers. We welcome the meeting with the Minister which has been promised. It would be a mistake to throw out the regulations before the Minister has had a chance to meet the veterinary and environmental health officers and thrash

out the problems. The attitude of the poultry industry must be considered. The British Poultry Federation has made clear—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock,MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided:Ayes 108, Noes 115.

Division No. 366.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Reid, George


Bean, R. E.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Beith, A. J.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey


Braine, Sir Bernard
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brotherton, Michael
Lamond, James
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sedgemore, Brian


Budgen, Nick
Lawson, Nigel
Selby, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cant, R. B.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carson, John
McCusker, H.
Silverman, Julius


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Skinner, Dennis


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Madden, Max
Spriggs, Leslie


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Marten, Neil
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crawford, Douglas
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Molyneaux, James
Thompson, George


Dempsey, James
Morgan, Geraint
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Torney, Tom


Drayson, Burnaby
Nelson, Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Durant, Tony
Neubert, Michael
Walder, David (Clitneroe)


Evans, John (Newton)
Newens, Stanley
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Farr, John
Newton, Tony
Wall, Patrick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Noll, John
Watkinson, John


Forrester, John
Onslow, Cranley
Welsh, Andrew


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitehead, Phillip


Glyn, Dr Alan
Ovenden, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Pardoe, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grist, Ian
Pattie, Geoffrey
Woodall, Alec


Hampton, Dr Keith
Pavitt, Laurie
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hannam, John
Penhaligon, David



Hatton, Frank
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Prescott, John
Mr. Clement Freud and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. Richard Body


Hughes, Roy (Newport)







NOES



Armstrong, Ernest
Emery, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Ennals, David
Kimball, Marcus


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Faulds, Andrew
Lambie, David


Bates, Alf
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Boardman, H.
Gilbert, Dr John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Golding, John
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Bradley, Tom
Gourlay, Harry
Luard, Evan


Bray, Or Jeremy
Graham, Ted
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grant, John (Islington C)
McCartney, Hugh


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
McElhone, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Harper, Joseph
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Concannon, J. D.
Hawkins, Paul
Magee, Bryan


Corbett, Robin
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mahon, Simon


Costain, A. P.
Horam, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mawby, Ray


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hunter, Adam
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hurd, Douglas
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor
Mills, Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, James (Hurl West)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Moonman, Eric


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Judd, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)




Moyle, Roland
Rowlands, Ted
Urwin, T. W.


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Ryman, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptord)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Ward, Michael


Ogden, Eric
Small, William
Watt, Hamish


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Weitzman, David


Page, John (Harrow West)
Snape, Peter
Whitlock, William


Palmer, Arthur
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Park, George
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Radice, Giles
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Woof, Robert


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stoddart, David



Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roper, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mr. James Hamilton and


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tomlinson, John
Mr. Donald Coleman

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — FIREARMS (VARIATION OF FEES)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c).

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1400), dated 26th August 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th September, be annulled.—[Mr. Kimball]

The House divided:Ayes 130, Noes 144.

Division No. 367.]
AYES
[11.45 p.m.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pardoe, John


Awdry, Daniel
Hannam, John
Pattle, Geoffrey


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hawkins, Paul
Penhaligon, David


Banks, Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Percival, Ian


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hurd, Douglas
Prior, Rt Hon James


Body, Richard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Boscawen, Hon Robert
James, David
Rathbone, Tim


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brittan, Leon
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Brotherton, Michael
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Bulmer, Esmond
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Carson, John
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Clegg, Walter
MacCormick, Iain
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Cope, John
Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Costain, A. P.
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter


Crawford, Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Crouch, David
Mayhew, Patrick
Thompson, George


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mills, Peter
Wakeham, John


Drayson, Burnaby
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Durant, Tony
Moate, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Emery, Peter
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Morgan, Geraint
Walters, Dennis


Fox, Marcus
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Watt, Hamish


Freud, Clement
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wells, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Nelson, Anthony
Welsh, Andrew


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Neubert, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Newton, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
Nott, John



Griffiths, Eldon
Onslow, CranJey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grist, Ian
Page, John (Harrow West)
Mr. John Farr and


Grylls, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Paisley, Rev Ian






NOES



Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Bates, Alt
Buchan, Norman
Concannon, J. D.


Bean, R. E.
Canavan, Dennis
Corbett, Robin


Benyon, W.
Cant, R. B.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Boardman, H.
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)




Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dempsey, James
Luard, Evan
Rowlands, Ted


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ryman, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sedgemore, Brian


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silverman, Julius


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Skinner, Dennis


Ennals, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Small, William


Evans, John (Newton)
McNamara, Kevin
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Magee, Bryan
Spriggs, Leslie


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon
Stallard, A. W.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
Stoddart, David


Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Strang, Gavin


Gilbert, Dr John
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Golding, John
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tomlinson, John


Graham, Ted
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Urwin, T. W.


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Ward, Michael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watkinson, John


Hatton, Frank
Newens, Stanley
Weitzman, David


Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


John, Brynmor
Prescott, John
Woof, Robert


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Radice, Giles
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)



Judd, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Peter Snape and


Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Joseph Harper


Lamborn, Harry

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — FIREARMS (VARIATION OF FEES) (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c).

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Firearms (Variation of Fees) (Scotland) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1446), dated 2nd September 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th September, be annulled.—[Sir John Gilmour.]

The House divided:Ayes 90, Noes 137.

Division No. 368.]
AYES
[11.57 p.m.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Griffiths, Eldon
Mills, Peter


Banks, Robert
Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoka)


Beith, A. J.
Gylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Braine, Sir Bernara
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hooson, Emlyn
Neubert, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Newton, Tony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hurd, Douglas
Page, John (Harrow West)


Carson, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
James, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clegg, Walter
Jessel, Toby
Pardoe, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Penhaligon, David


Cope, John
Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pytn, Rt Hon Francis


Crawford, Douglas
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rathbone, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Drayson, Burnaby
Latham, Michael (Mellon)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fox, Marcus
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Freud, Clement
MacCormick, Iain
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marten, Neil
Sainsbury, Tim


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mates, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James




Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Colin
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Sims, Roger
Watt, Hamish
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Weatherill, Bernard
Sir John Gilmour and


Stradling Thomas, J.
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. John Farr


Thompson, George
Wigley, Dafydd






NOES



Armstrong, Ernest
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Ashton, Joe
Hatton, Frank
Radice, Giles


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Horam, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bates, Alf
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Robinson, Geoffrey


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roper, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rowlands, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ryman, John


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cant, R. B.
Judd, Frank
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Lambie, David
Stlverman, Julius


Cohen, Stanley
Lamborn, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James
Small, William


Concannon, J. D.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Corbett, Robin
Luard, Evan
Snape, Peter


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David


Deakins, Eric
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Strang, Gavin


Dempsey, James
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Doig, Peter
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dormand, J. D.
Madden, Max
Tomlinson, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mahon, Simon
Urwin, T. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Eadie, Alex
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ward, Michael


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)
Watkinson, John


Ennals, David
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Forrester, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Newens, Stanley
Woodall, Alec


Freeson, Reginald
Oakes, Gordon
Woof, Robert


Gilbert, Dr John
Ogden, Eric
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Golding, John
Orbach, Maurice
Young, David (Bolton E)


Gourlay, Harry
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David



Grant, John (Islington C)
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Ted Graham and


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John
Mr. Joseph Harper

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FOREST OF DEAN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

12.8 a.m.

Mr. John Watkinson: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise in the House the housing need of the Forest of Dean. When I was first elected, I was asked what was the most pressing social problem facing the forest, and I replied "Housing". That problem has not diminished; indeed, it could be said to have increased, especially in the light of the recent Government brake on housing expenditure.
The Forest of Dean is, without doubt, one of the most attractive and beautiful areas in the country, but it contains within its bounds a housing problem to equal that of any urban area. I would not hesitate to say that its housing problem is one of the most profound in the South-West of England and, without doubt, it has the worst rural housing problem in the region.
The area consists of small scattered towns, villages and hamlets. Much of the housing is of nineteenth and early twentieth century origin. It was built to house the miners and their families. Money in those days was not a plentiful commodity, and housing suffered accordingly. There is now a chronic need for new housing, improvements, repairs and renovations. I note that according to the


circular issued by the Department of the Environment, apart from areas already listed as having special problems of housing stress, the Government will consider representations from other areas claiming equal priority. It is my purpose to tell the Government that housing problems exist in rural areas and to use the Forest of Dean as an example. I shall also urge them to give favourable consideration to treating it as a housing stress area.
The most obvious way in which housing need manifests itself is through council house waiting lists. The Forest of Dean's list has increased. When the list was reviewed in December 1974, there were 1,318 applicants. By September 1975, although 233 applicants had been housed, the list had increased to 1,623 applicants. Since then, 199 applicants have been rehoused, but the overall number waiting is now 1,765. Thus, there has been a steady and marked increase in the demand for council housing in my area. This demand should be set against the fact that there has been no growth in population—no upsurge in the indigenous population and no influx from outside.
The reasons for the increase and the pressure on the housing waiting list are not hard to find. Over the past few years it has been increasingly difficult for young married couples to contemplate buying their own homes. There was a house price boom in the early 1970's, but it came on top of a natural reluctance by the building societies to lend money against older properties, which abound in my area. Recently, there were restrictions on lending which the Government imposed. The Government said that the building societies would fill the gap, but in my area there is no evidence that this is taking place. Indeed, it may well be that the contrary is the case.
Average wages in the Forest of Dean are lower than in the rest of Gloucestershire, and the fact that building societies will give only a multiplier of 2 to 2¼ times the level of income means that few people can consider the possibility of buying their own homes. The high level of unemployment, which, I am thankful to say, has fallen recently, has increased the pressure on the housing waiting list. Not only are privately-bought homes beyond the reach of the unemployed; it

is also a fact that rented accommodation in the area has dried up.
Alongside this, the quality of much of the property in the Forest of Dean is deplorable. There are many fine council and private estates, but there is a great deal of housing which has virtually Dickensian deficiencies. The council has undertaken a survey in the district, and its findings indicate that 3,700 dwellings are not fit for human habitation, and 900 of these are not capable of being made fit at reasonable cost.
It is also the case that many people in the forest live in overcrowded conditions. Many of the letters I receive indicate overcrowding, or at best, acute family tension. It is common for young families to live with parents in the early years of marriage, and this often continues for a long Lime.
In an area such as mine we must consider the added problems that come from Government legislation. We have introduced a Bill to end tied cottages, and, as an excellent report by the local branch of Shelter indicated, this will add pressure to the housing waiting lists in my area. Likewise, in the next Session legislation will be introduced to deal with the problem of homelessness, and that too, will add pressure to the waiting list.
I cannot say that the record of the Forest of Dean District Council in house building and the acquisition of property is an outstanding one. As I have pointed out, the forest is an area in which the housing revenue account has had to bear a heavy burden of repairs and renovation of property. Also, the confused state of the housing programmes of the preexisting authority has made it difficult for the new authority. Given the scattered nature of the constituency and of the housing areas, it has been difficult to brine forward large scale schemes which could benefit from the economies of scale which result from large scale housing development.
Since 1st April 1974 the Council has built and acquired 271 properties. It must be said that this is a non-inspiring record. However, the council had started on a programme which would have resulted in 443 new dwellings by 1978, but under the new Government ordinance


it would appear that only 60 new properties will be built between now and next March. Thereafter the future is uncertain. Also, a programme for 60 houses in the Cinderford area, where there is a great housing need, has had to be laid to one side.
The situation in my constituency, within the Forest of Dean, is grim. I hope that I have shown that we have there an acute housing need. I hope, too, that the present Labour Administration, who are naturally oriented towards the towns, will not ignore the housing problems that exist in our rural areas. I also hope that I have done sufficient to show the Government that they should give the most active consideration to granting the forest priority status in housing.

12.17 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) not only on securing the Adjournment debate tonight but on the fair, yet forceful, way in which he has set out the housing problems facing the Forest of Dean District Council and on the continuing concern which he shows not only on behalf of his constituents but on matters of wider significance.
I would not for a moment argue that there is no housing need in this area, nor that the control reintroduced by Circular 80/76 makes it any easier for the local authority to satisfy that need. However, I think it is necessary for me to explain why a control of new local authority house building was needed.
First, local authority house building—which hitherto had been uncontrolled—showed every prospect of exceeding the public expenditure provision contained in the February White Paper by no less than £100 million. In easier economic circumstances this excessive enterprise on the part of local authorities might be overlooked, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, these are not easy times, and local authority house building had to be brought under control in order, taking one year with another, that expenditure will not exceed what has already been budgeted for. The budget, I should add, has not been changed. It is at the same high level as it was before, and it will enable

local authorities in England to average 100,000 tender acceptances per annum over the years 1976 and 1977.
I am aware that there is real housing need in my hon. Friend's area, but need is an all-embracing term, and one that is capable of a number of interpretations. I accept that there may be a need for new housing in the Forest of Dean, but an even greater need is a substantial improvement in the state of the existing housing stock.
By comparison with many other authorities in the country—all these things are relative—numbers on the waiting list, which I am advised is an open one and contains a number of applications from people not resident in the area, are not unreasonably high. I know, however, that that is no consolation to the folk who are in desperate need of a house. The latest available figure that I have is rather more than that which my hon. Friend gave. It is 1,870. He gave the figure of 1,765. I know what that means in human terms. As my hon. Friend will know, the forest did not entirely escape the effects of the Industrial Revolution, and the new council, following local government reorganisation, inherited a formidable legacy of bad housing—as my hon. Friend described so vividly.
Many of the houses are under-occupied. Much of the housing is dispersed over a wide area and does not, therefore, lend itself to the beneficial effects of housing action or general improvement area treatment prescribed in the Housing Acts of 1969 and 1974. The take-up of improvement grants made available by the Government to individual owner-occupiers to improve their housing conditions has been poor. As a result, about 3,700 houses in the district are acknowledged to be unfit for human habitation and about 900 of these are incapable of being made fit at reasonable expense. This confirms what my hon. Friend said.
I should like to say a word now about the courses of action open to the district council. First, during the current financial year it sought consent to spend £386,500 on the improvement and conversion of its existing stock of council houses. It was authorised to spend £340,000 and, under the measures announced earlier in the year by the


Chancellor designed to alleviate unemployment in the construction industry, it was authorised to spend a further £120,000. I do not think that the local authority would want to complain about my Department's treatment of its case in that respect.
There are, of course, other ways open to local authorities to bring about improvement in the living conditions of their constituents. They could take advantage of the opportunities available to them under the Government's municipalisation programme by bringing into social ownership dwellings which would otherwise fall into so serious a state of disrepair that clearance was the only possible solution.
It is, of course, our policy to prevent demolition and clearance wherever possible and to give the greatest encouragement to a rehabilitation programme. I am not aware that the council has indicated any interest in this particular course of action but it may be assured of a sympathetic hearing from my Department's South-West Regional Office if it should wish to discuss it.
As I have said, control was reintroduced in new local authority housing programmes to avoid an impending overspending. In order to achieve that objective, we have had to reduce the rate of tender acceptances from their present level of about 9,000 a month to about 6,000 a month for the remainder of 1976. For 1977, we shall be aiming for a total of about 90,000 tender acceptances. Our aim, in imposing the controls, has been to protect the programmes of stress authorities. As my hon. Friend clearly recognises, there are some areas, particularly, for example, in our inner cities, where the total weight of the housing problem is substantially greater than elsewhere, and this adds another dimension to the problem.
I assure my hon. Friend that, as one from a country constituency myself—there is no great conurbation in my area—I am aware that there are patches of real housing need in rural areas.
The decisions involved in the compilation of a list of stress authorities could never be universally uncontroversial. I can well understand the disappointment of other active housing authorities—including the Forest of

Dean—at not being listed, but this does not mean that the housing programmes of non-stress authorities will be ignored.
In particular, it is vital that we should not neglect the pockets of stress—some substantial—which exist in areas which, overall, appear to have a more satisfactory housing situation than the stress areas. In drawing up the present scheme, we have sought to meet these problems in two ways. First, we have made it clear that local authorities left out of the list are free to make representations as to why they should be included. My hon. Friend has made his case and he will know that the Forest of Dean district has made representations to be included in the stress list and my regional office has met the council's management team and listened to its representations. That case will be considered together with those made by other authorities in the country—about 40 in all—which are also seeking stress area status.
Secondly, by no means all the housing investment funds will be used up on new housebuilding in the stress areas. There will be funds available for new house building in the non-stress areas. In allocating these funds we shall pay special regard to areas of more localised stress and to housing pressures which arise particularly from industrial investment and social needs. It is important to note that the present stress areas have been determined in relation to new house building only. We shall continue to allocate funds for rehabilitation separately according to the relative needs of local authorities.
My hon. Friend will, I am sure, be pleased to know that our South-West Regional Office, which is fully aware of the housing need in the Forest of Dean, has recently authorised the council to accept tenders for two of its current housing schemes—42 houses in all. It will consider shortly what further action it can take to increase the rate of council house building in the area.
For the future, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is working towards a wholly new system of housing investment plans which would involve discussions with local authorities about the whole of their housing needs and would be linked to a system of single housing capital allocations to replace the present


complicated and compartmentalised arrangements.
Finally, I think it important to emphasise that, despite the pressure on public expenditure, we have given and are giving very high priority to the housing programme. The house building programme is no longer being administered without restrictions, but the large upward step in housing public sector expenditure which we, as a Government, insisted upon when we took office in 1974 is being maintained. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept, therefore, that I and my De-

partment are fully alive to the problem that he has discussed this evening and that, within the constraints imposed upon us by the present economic situation, we shall give all the assistance we can to support the efforts of the district council to meet its housing need.
I shall read and take careful note of my hon. Friend's speech. In the allocation of resources, we shall consider carefully the case that he has made tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.